Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John Pitcairn Mackintosh, esquire, Member for Berwick and East Lothian, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [26th July] as relates to the British Railways Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords message [26th July] as relates to the Sheffield General Cemetery Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered.
That the Promoters of the Sheffield General Cemetery Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings theron in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [26th July] as relates to the Tamar Bridge Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

So much of the Lords message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Tamar Bridge Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Conservation

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further measures he will introduce to conserve energy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Dr. John Cunningham): As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on energy conservation to the House last December, and repeated in the Green Paper on energy policy, we shall bring forward further measures to conserve energy as and when necessary. This year the Government have introduced the energy conservation scheme to encourage savings in industry and commerce, and the Homes Insulation Bill to provide assistance for private householders. The "Save It" campaign is also being continued and developed, including co-operation with the nationalised fuel industries. Our programme is a continuing one and further measures will be introduced as appropriate.

Mr. Atkins: Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Department of Transport on the savings that might come from the electrification of railways? Has he any further plans for new sources of renewable energy which themselves would conserve energy?

Dr. Cunningham: We discuss electrification with the Department of Transport and throughout the Government. My right hon. Friend recently published a further statement on our commitments towards the so-called alternative sources of energy. We expect them to make a small but significant contribution to our overall energy supplies by about the end of this century but not a great contribution before then.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister recognise that the only method of conserving energy which is not inherently wasteful of efforts and resources is the use of the price mechanism?

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was this


Administration which got the fuel industries out of the accumulated deficits which had accrued under the previous Administration.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Has my hon. Friend had any studies carried out on the energy saving aspects of waterborne transport and, if so, has he discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for the Environment with particular reference to improving the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation?

Dr. Cunningham: This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the British Waterways Board. We have looked at the possible consequences of energy conservation in this area, but I must tell my hon. Friend that energy conservation results alone would not make massive shifts to waterborne transport worth while. There would have to be other considerations and, indeed, there are. On the grounds of energy conservation, it is not really a priority.

Mr. Rost: As it is generally recognised that the biggest contribution to energy conservation can come from a more efficient use and production of electricity, will the Minister now say when he expects to come forward the working party report on combined heat and power proposals, and what action he proposes to take in the meantime?

Dr. Cunningham: I should like to say when the report and proposals are to come forward, but I cannot tell the House that a date has been agreed for the report. It is overdue. I hope that we shall have the report before too long, but I cannot make any commitment until we have seen the working party's recommendations.

Power Stations (Coalburn)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any firm evidence indicating that it might be possible to increase the proportion of coal burned at power stations in the United Kingdom without directly or indirectly passing on higher costs to the public.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the current level of coal-burn by power stations.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his proposals to alter the merit order of power stations in favour of more coalburning; and what conversations he has had with the trade unions in the electricity supply industry on the matter.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current position of coal stocks at power stations.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Stock levels at power stations and at pithead are high and could increase further. In order to make the greatest possible use of our indigenous resources, I have put in hand with the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board an urgent examination of the potential for burning additional quantities of coal in power stations to displace imported oil and coal. The study, which is still continuing, is being conducted on the basis that there would be no additional cost to the electricity consumer.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for that relatively full reply, but does not the observation of the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board that
the significant price advantage that coal has over oil has largely withered away
indicate that the right hon. Gentleman's policy of trying to make power stations more dependent upon coal rather than on cheaper forms of energy is both unfortunate and wrong? Will he agree that his policy will result, or is likely to result, in an increase of electricity prices next years of some 11 per cent.?

Mr. Benn: No, I reject that, as I made clear in my answer, but the House should appreciate that in the context of energy policy the fuelburn must be a matter for national consideration. On a number of occasions the Central Electricity Generating Board has urged me to tax gas, and I have taken the view that that is not a sensible course for us to pursue. The board accepts that we shall not permit gas-fired power stations to be built. That has been accepted. What does not make sense is to stock coal at home and import it from abroad and to import oil from abroad at a balance of


payments cost when coal, which is an indigenous source of energy, is available to us. I believe that this can be done without imposing any increase of prices for the electricity consumer, and I hope that my studies will show that to be so.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Since many of the coal industries in western Europe are now facing difficulties, largely because of the fall-off in demand for blast furnace coke, what help can we expect from the EEC towards solving what I believe will be a temporary problem since this industry will be utterly central to our economic thinking in 10 years' time?

Mr. Benn: I agree with the last part of that supplementary question: coal is the one resource which we can rely on for 300 years or more, and it would be lunatic to close pits in order to permit imports of coal and oil which may temporarily appear to be cheaper but which will not be available to us. As regards western Europe, the House should know that each individual German miner is subsidised by the German Government to the extent of £6,700 a year. Our coal is £10 a tonne cheaper than any other coal in Europe, and ours is much the most efficient mining industry. It would be absurd for me to put it at risk in pursuit of short-term market fluctuations which may well not persist.

Mr. Palmer: But will not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a serious matter to take a positive step by political decision to lower the efficiency of our electricity supply system? In fact, it is a sin against the light. Has my right hon. Friend taken into account that the electricity supply trade unions are very doubtful about the wisdom of this step, and will he consult them first?

Mr. Benn: When I discussed the matter in the context of the situation in south Wales, the electricity trade unions were present. As my hon. Friend knows, the unions in the TUC fuel and power committee, under the chairmanship of Frank Chapple, have been urging upon the Government for a long time an integrated national energy policy looking long term. This is the inevitable consquence of looking long term—that one does not set at risk secure supplies of fuel in pursuit of short-term market interests. Nor have I ever known the electricity unions to fail

to draw to my attention the economic disadvantage which they suffer vis-a-vis gas—my hon. Friend has made that point—and I think that energy policy must be made by a Minister answerable to Parliament. That is the view which I take.

Mr. Rooker: Notwithstanding the concerted attack by Tory backwoodsmen on the mining industry today at Question Time, will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee for the future of Britain's coal industry and give an assurance that there will not be any more oil-fired power stations built while we have this massive quantity of indigenous coal still under our soil?

Mr. Benn: I am happy to respond to my hon. Friend's supplementary question in this way. I am in favour of using indigenous supplies of fuel, and that applies not only to coal but to our nuclear programme for which we have a considerable indigenous capacity. As the House will know, I have recently told the Central Electricity Generating Board that I am not prepared to authorise the Inswork Point oil-fired power station, and I believe that that, too, is a sensible decision in the light of all the factors which I have described.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Secretary of State aware that a nuclear power station will produce energy—electricity—at 62 per cent. of the cost of coal? Would it not therefore be wiser to have a nuclear power station near Plymouth? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has no statutory power to compel the CEGB to consume more coal? He has not got clause 2(2) and clause 9(2) of the draft Bill passed by the House.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that, but at the same time I have responsibilities placed upon me by statute to co-ordinate the nation's energy policies, and I have to do the best I can in the circumstances which confront me. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government announced in April that, in their view, the power of specific directive ought to be available—

Mr. Skeet: The Minister has not got it.

Mr. Benn: —subject to proper parliamentary approval. The hon. Gentleman might notice that nuclear power depends upon uranium, and last week the European Commission prevented me from


signing an agreement with the Australian Government to buy uranium. I have to take account of a number of factors in considering the future availability of supplies.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend take it that his policy will be welcomed not only in south Wales but in all mining areas, and he should pursue his objective of getting an integrated energy policy? Does he accept that, although great profits are now being made by all the energy industries—gas, electricity and coal—there ought to be a long-term policy recognising, as he said, that there is at least 300 years' supply of coal, probably more, available to us?

Mr. Benn: Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend, but from the questions put from the Opposition Benches it would appear that the lessons of 1973 have been forgotten and Conservative Members are really advocating pit closures, which would put us at the mercy of vast increases in the prices of imported oil or imported coal to which we should then be subject.

Mr. Tom King: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the real threat of pit closures comes from his Government who have been so slow in recognising the problem which they now face? In the light of the productivity scheme, which was bound to give rise to this concern about higher stocks and the problem of coalburn, why has he been so slow and only now begun to consider the problem? Does he maintain, as he did in "Coal for the Future", that the crucial factor for the coal industry is to maintain the cutting edge of its competitiveness if it is to have a real future in this country, which can be so important for us?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The mining industry, like all the fuel industries, including electricity, has been badly hit by the economic recession and temporarily the various price differentials have been subject to fluctuations. But it is confidently expected that there may well be an oil price increase of 10 per cent., and the truth is that his party's policy is meaningful only in terms of a pit closure programme. That, in effect, is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, although he has not the courage to say it openly.

Mr. Winterton: In view of the Secreretary of State's totally unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this important matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Central Electricity Generating Board (Corporate Plan)

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has had time to consider the Central Electricity Generating Board's corporate plan.

Mr. Benn: I have seen the CEGB's 1978 corporate plan which will be taken into account in reviewing national energy policy. I have already indicated to the board the importance the Government place on maintaining and strengthening the role of coal in generating electricity.

Mr. Gray: Is the Secretary of State aware that in cost forecasting the indication is that nuclear power will become more and more efficient as a source of electrical generation? In the light of the views expressed in the corporate plan by the CEGB, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what has happened to plans for the pressurised water reactor?

Mr. Benn: The answer to the latter part of the supplementary question is that there has been no change. In January I announced that we should be authorising the ordering of two advanced gas cooled reactors and that an option for the PWR would be available. Why the hon. Gentleman should identify our future nuclear programme with an American reactor, excluding the AGR, I do not know. He chose to mention only the PWR and not the AGR.
The general position is that the generating board has put forward its own views in its corporate plan, not the Government's views. The purpose of energy policy's being conducted in public is that people should know what the alternatives are before the Government decide what the policy should be. I have no complaints about the generating board's putting forward its views, but the decisions must be made in a way that is accountable to the House.

Mr. Madden: Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on the reasons why the


European Commission chose to intervene in the way that he has described? Can he say what justification the Commission gave for intervening in Britain's affairs in the way that it apparently has?

Mr. Benn: I shall do my best. The Commission evidently decided to interpret the Euratom treaty in such a way as to prevent us from signing an agreement with a Commonwealth country to acquire uranium which this country badly needs for its nuclear programme. Although I took the opportunity of discussing the matter with Commissioner Brunner when he was in London, that view prevailed. In the Government's view—and this was made clear—the Commission is wholly wrong and is acting in a way that is contrary to our national interest and the wider interests of the Community.

National Coal Board and Central Electricity Generating Board

Mr. Jim Lester: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Mr. Benn: I meet the chairmen of all the fuel industries regularly.

Mr. Lester: When he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, will the Secretary of State apologise for his dilatory approach to the Community in trying to arrange a scheme which would benefit the British coal industry and increase consumption in Europe?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that the chairman of the NCB, the mining unions or anybody else thinks that there is anything to apologise for in what we have done. We have put our view forward for 18 months at EEC Council meetings. We agreed to the coking coal scheme, which helps the German steel industry, and we agreed to the Euratom loans, which primarily help France and Italy. We had every reason to expect that the

steam coal scheme would be accepted. It was not. Far from apologising to anybody, we have been much disappointed by the Community's failure to allow the cheapest coal in Europe—I gave the figures a few minutes ago, showing that it is £10 a tonne cheaper than anyone else's—to be burnt in preference to cheap imported Polish coal. This view has been most formidably expressed in the Council, to the satisfaction of the British mining industry.

Mr. Forman: When the Secretary of State last had discussions with the chairman of the CEGB, did he confess to him that his own stated intention to try to intervene in the merit order decisions of the CEGB would be both premature and improper in the light of the Government's commitment in paragraphs 20 and 21 of their nationalised industry White Paper to do such things only on the basis of secured legislation and adequate compensation?

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what is meant. If there is a coalburn scheme of a kind already announced and approved for Scotland and Wales which makes coal available more cheaply to the CEGB, then, without our intervening in the merit order as such, the order of burning of the stations individually changes. That is what is proposed. We believe that that can be done without impinging in any way on the cost of electricity paid for by the consumer.

Mr. Hannam: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the heads of the fuel industries the current shambles in the accountancy system being adopted by them, with some of them adopting current cost accounting and others not doing so? Why has the right hon. Gentleman failed to secure agreement on a common system for all of these nationalised industries?

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point on accountancy. This is primarily a matter for the relationship between the nationalised industries, not only in the fuel sector, and the Treasury. I have seen some of the comments on whether inflation accounting methods are used or various other methods are used. The matter was discussed at a meeting of the nationalised industries' chairmen, chaired by my right hon. Friend the


Chancellor of the Exchequer, at which I was present. That will require further clarification.

Mr. Hardy: Did my right hon. Friend see a letter from Sir Derek Ezra in The Times last week suggesting that the public sector industries faced real criticism for profiteering if they were in the black but were equally condemned if they made a loss? When my right hon. Friend meets Sir Derek, will he try to explain to him why this occurs? Will he confirm that the public sector energy industries have very impressive achievements to their credit? It would be very useful if he would invite the Opposition Front Bench to confirm that it approves of that success.

Mr. Benn: The one constant in all these matters is the hostility of the Conservative Party to the public sector, either for losing money as a result of its own policy or for making money as a result of the policy we have adopted. There are complications about inflation accountancy, but the fact is, that the publicly owned industries have done well. I have already cited coal, which is outstanding compared with any other mining industry in Europe. The day the Opposition pay a tribute to the public sector, we shall take seriously the criticisms they may wish to make of those industries from time to time.

Mr. Tom King: Why was the Secretary of State less than frank with the House in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) in saying that he did not consider that he had been too slow in pushing the the coal scheme in Europe, when in a Financial Times interview only last week he said that he thought he had pushed the coal scheme too late and that it would have been better if coal had been part of the earlier package? We certainly endorse the right hon. Gentleman's rather franker earlier comments and not the comments he has now made to the house.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the position. I pressed the steam coal case 18 months ago, and the Council of Ministers would not agree to it. I felt it right not to hold back—[Interruption.] Of course I have read the article. I felt it right not to hold back on agreeing to the Euratom loans and the

coking coal scheme, but the Council of Ministers has not been ready to endorse our policy. There is no power open to a British Minister to force it, although I would not mind a bit more help from the Conservative Party on our approach to Europe as well.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the CEGB, will he press on him the advantages for the boiler industry of building a new boiler to replace the one at No. 11 unit C station, at Drakelow power station in my constituency? Is he aware that the CEGB has announced that it is not prepared to repair it but that It is considering building a new one in its place?

Mr. Benn: The reference to the new boiler at No. 11 created a slight confusion in my mind. I cannot go into individual management decisions, nor is it my wish to do so. But I think that the case for refurbishing existing power stations at this time is well worth considering, because it would be of real help to the industry. The boiler-making industry and the power plant industry must be kept in being for the major orders we expect to follow. Therefore, to that extent, I hope that I may satisfy my hon. Friend's general desire.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why did my right hon. Friend group Question 5 with Questions 9 and 16? Question 5 concerned the chairman of the NCB and the other Questions were about the chairman of the CEGB.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister decides his own grouping. Supplementary questions seem to have indicated why the Questions were grouped.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the Secretary of State examine the recent proposal by the European Commission for the substitution of imported coal by home-mined coal both in this country and in Europe? If so, has he costed it and what is his attitude to it? It seems to me that this is exactly along the lines that he has been proposing. I hope that he will be successful in pushing this through, because I believe that it would be advantageous not only to us but to Europe.

Mr. Benn: I most strongly agree. It does not seem to me to be very sensible to pass a lot of resolutions calling for a reduction of dependence on imported energy and at the same time to allow the domestic coal industry to be put at risk by imported coal. I have put forward this point of view most powerfully over a period of 18 months to two years, but the Council of Ministers has not accepted it. I think that it is necessary and should be encouraged, and I shall continue to press it. I have placed it on the agenda for the next Energy Council meeting.

Mr. Stoddart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and many other Labour Members heard with great concern the problems that are caused by the interference of the EEC in our energy policy? Does he discuss these matters with the chairmen of the nationalised industries when he meets them and does he tell them exactly how difficult this interference is making the work of energy use and conservation?

Mr. Benn: I do discuss these matters. The House knows that the Commission is attacking us on six fronts at the moment—the interest relief grants, the Offshore Supplies Office, the landing rights, the possible attack upon the monopoly purchase of gas by British Gas, nuclear policy on the Euratom agreement, and refineries. This is a major range of attacks upon our national energy policy. I discuss them with those concerned and I might add—[Interruplion.] If the House will listen it will hear that these are not disputes with other member States, many of which share our view about the role of the Commission in energy policy. This is a question involving the Commission, not member States. It would be helpful if I could carry some Opposition Members with me on these issues.

British National Oil Corporation

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will review the security and confidential information made available to the British National Oil Corporation through participation agreements.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): I am satisfied that the Department of Energy and the British National Oil Corporation

are honouring the commitments relating to confidentiality of information contained in participation agreements with the various companies. I do not, therefore, propose to hold a review.

Mr. Dodsworth: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he recalls that the requirements for investment up to 1987 are over £15 billion and that that investment will mostly be repaid out of retained earnings? Does not the threat to confidentiality call that in question? Further, has he considered the fact that the discriminatory nature of the treatment, on licensing and financial terms, is probably in breach of articles 86 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome?

Dr. Mahon: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is not true. I would agree with the first part of it. If there were breaches of confidentiality, it would be very serious. But there have been none.

Mr. Viggers: Are not the Government putting an unnecessary strain on those working within BNOC by making it both a commercial oil company and adviser to the Minister? Does he not realise that this must be a situation which breeds mistrust and misunderstanding?

Dr. Mabon: It is true that the corporation has to be well aware of the practical difficulties occasioned by the requirement regarding non-use and non-dissemination within the corporation. Steps have been taken within the corporation to ensure that its personnel are acquainted with the need to observe those requirements scrupulously. May I venture the opinion that, perhaps, the personnel of BNOC are in this respect in the same position as other professional people in banking and in industry generally?

Mr. Gray: Does not the Minister accept that until January 1976 94 per cent. of the total investment in the North Sea came from private industry? Is it not essential that the confidence of private industry should be stimulated rather than hampered by anything which BNOC might do?

Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is a little hostile towards BNOC. The fact is that BP represents a substantial State involvement in the North Sea, so that I cannot confirm his


first figure. Further, the British Gas Corporation has played a singularly substantial part in developing the North Sea. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the private and public sectors, married as they are, have to get on well together, which means that confidentiality in these matters has to be preserved by everyone.

Alternative Sources

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has initiated any discussions on the proposals outlined in his White Paper "The Development of Alternative Sources of Energy".

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): Detailed discussions with contractors are in hand on projects arising from the increased research programmes announced in the White Paper on alternative sources of energy. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future about the membership of the Severn Barrage Committee.

Mr. Knox: Due to the possibly serious consequences of the failure to develop alternative forms of energy, does not the Minister agree that the expenditure plans for research are too low and that this is an area where over-insurance against possible catastrophe would be perfectly justified?

Mr. Eadie: I share some of the hon. Member's concern. There are two schools of thought about this. One believes that we are spending too much on alternative sources of energy, while the other believes that we are spending too little. A great deal of the technology that we are discussing is still in the laboratory stage; it is still very much in its infancy. As the technology and the engineering progress, more investment will have to be made.

Mr. Forman: May I ask whether, in the discussions on alternative sources of energy, people have brought home to the Minister the fact that to spend less than £1 million on the development of wind energy is totally inadequate in view of the potential of that source? Has he been made aware of the fact that to allocate fewer than 20 people to alternative source work within ETSU is also inadequate?

Mr. Eadie: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, much

of this technology is in the laboratory stage. As it develops, the Government have pledged themselves to spend more money. Many people feel that we are spending too much in this direction. The Government's view has always been clear and specific.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been two committees on the Severn barrage which have reported, the first in the 1920s? Is he aware that, although these reports have been favourable, they have remained on the shelves? Does he realise that, as a Young Socialist, I was presented with a prize for writing an essay on the Severn barrage, the prize being presented by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West, (Mr. Thomas), who was young and debonair at the time? We are still waiting for action to be taken.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend and the House will perhaps agree that the prize is now beginning to shine as a result of the commitment we have announced. We hope very shortly to announce the full membership of the committee. The fact that we have already announced the capital sum that will be involved in the feasibility studies is of importance.

United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I saw representatives of the association on 20th July.

Mr. Viggers: When the Minister last met oil company representatives, did he discuss with them the widespread press reports indicating, apparently from informed sources, that there is to be a change in the oil taxation structure of the North Sea? Are these reports true? If so, do they not indicate that the Government have made a miscalculation in the past and that there has been a delay in recognising this?

Dr. Mabon: I discussed with UKOOA its views about the sixth round arrangements. The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is "No, Sir". As for the second part, the hon. Gentleman will have to refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Adley: Is it not true, as a general proposition, that the benefit from oil development is either to the nation or to the companies concerned, while the cost is often borne by the local community in environmental terms and by way of a strain on services? Since the Department of the Environment seems unaware of whether any other OECD countries levy local taxes on offshore development in particular, may I ask the Minister to look at this matter so that local authorities in areas where there are close offshore developments may feel that there is some possibility of their getting some return for the costs which they will be called upon to bear?

Dr. Mabon: That is an interesting point. It has been reflected in what has happened in the Shetland Islands and, to a lesser extent, in the Orkney Islands. This is not a matter exclusively for the Department of the Environment or the Scottish or Welsh Offices; it is for the Department of Energy. We take it very seriously, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Loyden: When he meets the offshore operators, will my right hon. Friend take up the question of the need for better health and safety regulations for the workers involved? When does he intend to raise this matter so that there will be a tightening-up of the present regulations?

Dr. Mahon: My hon. Friend will know that we have included references to these matters in the criteria, so-called, for the fifth round and, I hope, the sixth round. My right hon. Friend is in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Employment on this subject. I hope that we shall have something to say about it quite soon.

Nationalised Industries (Investment)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now satisfied with the level of investment in the nationalised energy industries in the United Kingdom.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am sure that the present level of investment in the United Kingdom nationalised energy industries, now running at an annual rate of some £.1.8 billion, is right. For the future, the hon. Member will find projections of possible investment require-

ments up to the year 2000 in Energy Commission Paper No. 7.

Mr. Wainwright: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that we are developing an integrated energy policy? Does he call together, when he has these discussions, the chairmen of all the energy industries to make certain that everyone knows what is intended? Does he not think it crazy that we should spend so much money on gas and oil, consuming it in great quantities in the next two or three decades, when we have an abundance of coal which is not being used to the extent that it should be?

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend is, I know, a fair man. He will admit that my right hon. Friend has been outstanding in his attempts to try to bring together, not only informally but formally through the Energy Commission, the chairmen of the nationalised industries and all those possibly concerned with an integrated energy policy. I hope that the energy policy Green Paper is the first of several on the subject.

Mr. Dodsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the best ways to achieve a satisfactory level of investment is by a proper increase in retained earnings and profits, and that, while some of us welcome the progress that has been made in that direction, we should be a great deal more satisfied with progress if we could be satisfied that there were not frequent changes in accounting and depreciation policy which masked the real attitudes and achievements of the industry concerned?

Dr. Mabon: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is an interesting comment not only on the nationalised industries but on industry in general. In reply to the first part, I assure him that we try very hard in that regard.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widely-held opinion in the mining industry that many coal mines were closed prematurely at the time when we switched over largely to oil for industry? Would it not be fair to ask for some investment to explore the possibility of reopening pits?

Dr. Mabon: I think that with hindsight —with some people, with foresight—almost everyone would agree with my


hon. Friend that the rundown of the coal mines in the 1950s and 1960s was a great error and something that we certainly must not repeat. But "The Plan for Coal" is a witness to the industry of the intention of this Government at any rate to keep coal in its proper place.

Mr. Tom King: Where substantial public investment is involved, is it not right that there should be the clearest public accountability? I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) said about the need for uniformity of accounting standards. Is it not unbelievably dilatory of the Department and the Secretary of State that there should still be no financial target for the British Gas Corporation so that the chairman is setting his own target?

Dr. Mabon: I have already acknowledged the importance of the point made in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The point relating to the British Gas Corporation is a serious matter, I agree. But let us not run away from the fact that the corporation is one of the most successful publicly owned enterprises in the world.

Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of investment in the publicly owned energy industries should be a model to the private manufacturing sector, and that if investment in the private manufacturing sector were comparable to the level of investment he has been describing to the House the British economy would not be in the mess that it is in today?

Dr. Mabon: Absolutely.

Alternative Sources

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he had with the European Commission on the subject of alternative uses of energy, such as wave power and solar energy, before announcing his recent programme in the field.

Mr. Eadie: There is close and continuing consultation on research into the alternative sources of energy with the other member States and with the Commission.

Mr. Dalyell: Which work can best be done on a national basis and which on a European basis?

Mr. Eadie: In each of the areas of work, one has to consider each aspect on its merits. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are projects such as JET which are so large that they are clearly best done on an international basis. There are others where local climatic, sociological or industrial conditions make it better for them to be tackled nationally. Certainly that consideration is one of the factors that the review to be carried out by the CREST (Energy) Committee will take into account.

Miss Fookes: What proportion of the research and development budget is spent on nuclear power as opposed to the various alternative sources of energy?

Mr. Eadie: I do not have the figure with me. I will write to the hon. Lady.

National Union of Mineworkers

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects next to hold a meeting with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Benn: The date of my next meeting with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has not yet been fixed. I met him this morning.

Mr. Ridley: When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Gormley, will he ask him whether he is entirely happy with the Government's guideline of a 5 per cent. pay increase for the miners? If the answer is "Yes", will he ask Mr. Gormley whether that undertaking will continue during the period of the next Tory Government too?

Mr. Benn: I cannot look as far ahead as the possibility that in the late 1980s there might be another Tory Government, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that one of the many reasons why the NUM has given the Government such strong support is to be sure that, by an agreed policy, we shall be able to prevent a repetition of the disastrous episodes of recent years.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend explain to Mr. Gormley that many of us on the Back Benches are not particularly satisfied with the 5 per cent. guideline but that we would not be satisfied with the type of policies that would be pursued by the Conservative Party, which would lead us into constant confrontation with the trade unions?

Mr. Benn: I think that there is no doubt that one of the reasons why there was a change of Government in 1974 was that the British public did not wish to have a Government engaged on a course of confrontation with the mining industry or other industries. As my hon. Friend knows, the NUM has, through pithead ballots, supported the Government in the recent pay policies, and that support has reflected the desire of the mining industry that it should be able to proceed without the risk of confrontation being renewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Africa

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on her aid policy for Africa.

The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): I plan to increase steadily over the period ahead the amount of British bilateral aid allocated to Africa, particularly to the poorest countries. This year it amounts to £142 million, and it will, of course, rise next year within the increasing aid programme.

Mr. Miller: But cannot the right hon. Lady give us some assurance that her aid policy is based on the criterion of human rights? Has she given some intimation to countries such as Ethiopia that further aid will be withheld until we are satisfied about the civil rights situation?

Mrs. Hart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here for my last Question Time when I explained that we have a residual aid programme to Ethiopia concerned with a rural water supply which we do not think it sensible to cut off because it will benefit the poorest people; but we are entering into no new aid projects for Ethiopia at present.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that overwhelmingly on this side of the House we are in favour of what she is doing in her aid policy towards Africa but that, like Oliver Twist, we would like more? What is she doing about the disaster in the Sudan, where ther have been catastrophic floods? Much of the Gezeira, the creation of Arthur Gaitskell, has been overwhelmed, and hundreds of villages have been covered.

Help is neded there. Can my right hon. Friend please tell us what is happening?

Mrs. Hart: Because we have a very efficient disaster unit in the Ministry, which I set up three or four years ago, we have already sent some special assistance to the Sudan to help meet the disaster. There may well be need for more aid, but we are already under way on the matter.

Mr. Luce: Will the right hon. Lady say whether it continues to be the Government's policy that, in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, human rights should feature as a prominent factor in the provision of aid?

Mrs. Hart: We are seeking to make that so, but it is difficult. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be easier to include matters like human rights in the Lomé Convention if a specific effort is made in the renegotiations to protect the interests of ACP countries, particularly against the inroads of the common agricultural policy being pursued by the EEC?

Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I took part last Monday in the initial stages of the renegotiations of the Lomé Convention. Clearly, it will be a complex of factors, and we shall have to see how it works out on all sides. I agree that there are a number of interests of ACP countries that must be protected. We hope to be successful on the human rights issue, but I can only say to the House that it will be difficult.

Debt Relief

Mr. Forman: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether her Department plans to take any new policy initiatives in the light of the recent Bonn summit meeting.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what progress is being made with the cancellation of debt of the poorest developing countries.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what proposals she has on debt relief for underdeveloped


countries; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she proposes to implement her decision to consider giving debt relief to the poorest countries on a country-by-country basis.

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will make a statement on British policy on debt relief in the light of the Bonn summit.

Mrs. Hart: As part of their aid policy, the Government are taking steps with effect from today to remove the burden of past aid loans, known as RTA—retrospective terms adjustment—or to adopt equivalent measures, in respect of 17 of the poorest developing countries. These are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, Egypt, the Gambia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nepal, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, and Western Samoa. All have aid repayments outstanding, but are now eligible to receive aid from us on grant terms.
The maximum cost will be some £60 million a year and the total amount of principal and interest involved to the end of the century is some £900 million. The cost will be entirely met from within the increasing aid programme. Detailed arrangements will be discussed with each of the 17 Governments. In the case of India, local cost aid will be offered instead of RTA.
RTA will not be extended to Governments which would otherwise qualify but which we regard as having seriously violated human rights. At the Bonn summit the Government promised, with other participants, to support a replenishment of the International Development Association to allow its annual lending to rise in real terms, and said that the World Bank's capital should be doubled. We shall be pursuing both issues vigorously in the coming months.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that many of us welcome her announcement of debt relief for the poorest countries, but is she further aware that it is disappointing that this agreement was not possible at the multilateral Bonn summit, as the Prime Minister had indicated?

Does this not suggest some failure of British policy? Will the Minister confirm that among the 17 countries which will benefit from this decision are some with a per capita income above the internationally agreed poverty datum line of 5280 a head?

Mrs. Hart: On the second point, no. Some of the data are in the process of being revised, and in fact the RTA will extend to countries which normally tit into the category of the poorest countries. On the hon. Member's first point, it is not a failure of British policy at the Bonn summit; it is just a pity that other countries have not reacted similarly.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend has mentioned that in future there will be grant aid instead of loans for such countries, but can she confirm that this will enable countries with the least resources to benefit in human terms in ways that might not have been possible under the former system of lending? Will she tell us how this will be effected in the coming years?

Mrs. Hart: In fact, the essence of this new step in aid policy is the logical inconsistency of clawing back debt repayment and interest from countries to which we have already been giving grants for some years. Of course, it follows that in future these countries will have grants, as in the past, and obviously that will assist their development policies considerably.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the £60 million a year cost will not come out of already promised aid programmes to any of those 17 countries?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend on that matter. I do not know whether the House has completely taken into account what we decided in the public expenditure White Paper of a few months ago—that the aid programme should increase by 6 per cent. a year over the next four years. This is the biggest increase in all public expenditure programmes and it means that we can use the aid programme to do certain very valuable things, such as giving this debt relief, and at the same time continue to increase the aid programmes to the poorest countries. There is no conflict at all.

Mr. Rifkind: Does not the Minister believe that it would have been far more sensible to give debt relief on a country-by-country basis to those countries that were having specific problems rather than giving it in toto to countries with an economic level below a certain figure?

Mrs. Hart: There are certain countries which are not included in this list to which we have been giving additional special measures of aid because of their difficulties. Jamaica and Zambia are two examples. The logic of the aid policy is that it is absurd to continue to claw back debt repayments and interest from countries to which we are giving grants. That is the basis of it, and the hon. Member must agree that we must have some logic.

Mr. Rhodes James: While personally welcoming the principle of the arrangements that the Minister has announced, may I ask her under what authority the Government can make such a commitment? Surely parliamentary approval is required, and when will that be sought?

Mrs. Hart: It would have been required had we met the cost of this scheme from outside the already agreed aid programme. But Parliament has already given its approval for that.

Mr. Luce: In view of the right hon. Lady's very important answer, may I express some regret that she has not made a statement on this matter so that we could probe it more effectively?
While I accept that there is mutual economic benefit to be derived from an effective writing off of debts in certain cases between Britain and the third world, may I ask what criteria she has applied for writing off the debts, particularly in view of the fact that the per capita assessment is a very crude method of judging a country's economic potential? Secondly, will she answer more specifically the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) about a country-by-country review of debt relief, based on a nation's ability to repay debts, which is far more sensible than the way in which we are tackling this problem?

Mrs. Hart: I shall certainly expand a shade on the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-

lands (Mr. Rifkind). A country which comes into the poor category has terrible difficulty in its development problems, and therefore acute difficulty in repaying past debts and interest. That goes without saying.
As to the way in which we categorise countries, obviously we have used the category of the least developed countries. The per capita income, I agree, is not really satisfactory. I wish that some of our economists were further advanced in their work in trying to define some other index. But we do not have this yet, so we have to use the category of the World Bank. Work is being done on this at the Institute of Development Studies in Sussex, and I agree we should try to arrive at better categorisation. But at present we must use the World Bank standard, which is internationally applicable.

Mr. Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Lady has made a statement which commits this country to an expenditure or loss of £60 million a year in the next 10 years to be taken off the existing aid budget. This involves a commitment by this country over a period to an expenditure of over £900 million. Her statement commits a future Parliament to certain expenditure. Should this not have been a statement by the Minister rather than an answer to a Question? Secondly, may we have a statement by you, Sir, tomorrow on the implications of decisions announced in this way by Ministers? Surely this involves the decision of the present Parliament and indeed of future Parliaments.

Mr. Speaker: First, it is a matter of judgment for the Minister herself as to how she answers Questions. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, every Parliament is the master of its own affairs. I have no doubt that the next Parliament will behave as it wishes to behave—properly, I hope.

Mozambique

Mr. Gow: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she is satisfied that moneys being lent or given to Mozambique by the United Kingdom Government are being used for the purposes for which they were intended; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gow: Is it not clear, even to the Minister, that from Mozambique there has been mounted a sustained campaign of murder, mutilation and arson against the Queen's subjects—mainly black—in Rhodesia? Whatever the intention of the right hon. Lady, her Department's funds—those provided by her Government—are helping to sustain a Marxist regime which is the enemy of this country.

Mrs. Hart: I appreciate the hon. Member's deep concern about this matter. First, we have been responding, like 50 other countries and international agencies, to the economic needs of Mozambique since the closure of the border with Rhodesia. If the hon. Member is interested in a peaceful settlement with Rhodesia, however difficult that may seem, he should know that the closing of the border between Mozambique and Rhodesia has been a crucial factor in this matter.
Secondly, our aid goes for precisely defined purposes. Thirdly, I would much more appreciate questions on this matter from Conservative Members if even one of them had visited Mozambique since its independence.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend, in determining whether aid or money should be given or lent to Mozambique, have regard for the fact that the United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia have been observed by Mozambique, whereas the former Fascist colonial regime in that country was co-operating with the illegal regime in Rhodesia?

Mrs. Hart: That is precisely the point. I quote very briefly some facts from the last United Nations mission, which identified a gap of $87 million in terms of transport, telecommunications systems and other development projects which had been gravely damaged by the closing of the border with Rhodesia.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can the Minister tell the House, for the benefit of hon. Members and the public, exactly the use to which aid to Mozambique is being put? Some of us feel very concerned that it may be directed into channels for which it was not intended, either by the Minister or by this House.

Mrs. Hart: I have given answers, written and oral, on this subject, many times in this House. The hon. Gentleman may well refer to them. I have specified what the aid has gone to. I have indicated that the aid is carefully monitored.

Mr. Winterton: May we not be given the information now?

Mrs. Hart: If Mr. Speaker will allow me 10 minutes in which to go through all the parliamentary answers I have already given on the subject, I shall be glad to do so. I repeat that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers which I have already given.

Jojoba Plant

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action she is taking to promote the development of the jojoba plant in desert areas of developing countries, with a view to producing substitutes for sperm whale oil for use in the leather industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Tomlinson): Research is still at an early stage and we do not intend to duplicate the excellent work being done in the United States of America, Mexico and Israel. When we judge that we can make a significant contribution of benefit to the underdeveloped countries, it will be made.

Mr. Dalyell: Is time on our side in this matter? Is not the truth that the leather industry at one level—and, much more seriously, the world in general—will have no whales when they are all massacred? Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless something is done as a matter of urgency rather than waiting for this, that and the other piece of research, we shall lose the world's biggest mammal'?

Mr. Tomlinson: I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The plant is potentially an excellent substitute, but there are considerable problems to be overcome before it can be considered a commercially viable alternative.

Mr. Heller: Will the Minister pursue this matter with great intensity? May I tell the House that I drive my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) back to his flat at night and that these great plants which he puts in my


car are causing me some embarrassment? I believe that my hon. Friend has a very good case and I urge the Minister to pursue the topic with the greatest energy.

Mr. Tomlinson: I fully recognise what my hon. Friend has said. I have spent some time examining the problem, although not at the same kind of personal discomfort suffered by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Heffer: It is not discomfort.

Mr. Tomlinson: Excellent work is being undertaken. At present we do not believe that it would be helpful to duplicate the work that is being carried out until some benefit is shown from the research.

BILL PRESENTED

OFFICIAL INFORMATION

Mr. Robin F. Cook, supported by Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Christopher Price, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. J. W. Rooker and Mr. Tom Litterick, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the disclosure of official information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed

ORDER OF THE DAY

TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5

COMMUNITY BUS SERVICES

Lords amendment: no. 1, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) A community bus service may extend to the provision of excursions and tours as defined by section 159 of the 1968 Act.")

3.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I understand that with this amendment we are also to take Lords amendments nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 25.
May I first explain this group of amendments? Amendment no. 1 allows community minibus services to be used for excursions and tours. Amendments nos. 2 and 4 are essentially paving amendments for the next Lords amendment, which is amendment no. 5 and which we are taking separately.
Amendments nos. 2 and 4, and ultimately amendment no. 5, allow community minibuses to be used for private hire. In practice, private hire and excursions and tours amount to more or less the same thing. The differences are mainly technical. I propose to make the substance of the case for Lords amendment no. 5 on this group of amendments. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to deal with Lords amendment no. 5 fairly speedily later. This will lead to a more logical debate.
Amendment no. 7 is consequential and amendments nos. 3 and 25 deal with entirely separate subjects, to which I shall come later.
The main issue which is the substance of most amendments in this group and of Lords amendment no. 5 which follows separately, relates to the finances of the community bus service. Even with the economies that come from the use of volunteer drivers, experience has shown that revenue from the basic stage services,


which it is the main purpose of the community bus to provide, is not enough to meet all the costs of running the vehicle, in particular the capital cost and depreciation. Subsidy from the county council will be needed and we have provided the necessary powers in clause 1(5). But that subsidy should be kept within reasonable limits, and existing community bus services have kept their overall deficit down by operating occasional excursions and tours for local people and by a certain amount of contract hire—for example to take the Women's Institute on an outing. The revenue they get from these two sources helps to subsidise the less remunerative but essential stage services, and these outings are in themselves a valuable means of enhancing the quality of life for isolated rural communities.
To this end, we make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that a community bus service can extend to the provision of excursions and tours. That is the purpose of amendment no. 1. In the new clause that we shall come to on use of community buses for contract work and the paving amendments nos. 2 and 4 we provide for the traffic commissioners in granting a road service licence or permit for a community bus service to authorise the use of the community bus as a contract carriage. That allows the second part of the additional usage. Without these provisions, the community bus would still have needed PSV licences for driver and vehicle alike to do excursions and tours or contract work and this would have undermined the licensing relaxation which is at the heart of what we are doing in this part of the Bill.
The other amendments to clause 5 and the amendments to clause 7 and schedule 2 are purely technical and provide for the avoidance of doubt that the vehicle disc referred to in subsection (5) of clause 5 has to be issued by the traffic commissioners and by no one else, and that regulations made under section 160 of the 1960 Act can cover the procedure governing applications for and issue of the disc. The disc is the visible sign that the use of the community bus is properly authorised by the traffic commissioners, and it is particularly important that there should be no doubt about its authenticity if the community bus is also to be allowed to operate for private hire.
These provisions are fully in accordance with the principle we have followed throughout of allowing as much flexibility as possible while maintaining adequate safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure that the appropriate safety standards are maintained. All the safeguarding provisions in clause 5 will apply equally to the use of the community bus for private hire under clause 6 and there are additional controls which allow the traffic commissioners, if necessary, to restrict the scope of private hire and which prevent the organisers from employing an additional vehicle solely for private hire work. Finally, the traffic commissioners must be satisfied before authorising the community bus to do private hire work that this
is reasonable in all the circumstances with a view to financial support of the community bus service".
The essential point contained in this group of amendments is that a community bus service can augment its income, and in many cases the authorities are willing to do this by taking people on excursions and tours and by undertaking a certain amount of private contract hire. This is a sensible spelling out of what was always implicit in our intentions in respect of the community bus.

Mr. Norman Fowler: What discussions has the Minister had with the Confederation of Road Passenger Transport on this matter?

Mr. Horam: We have had discussions with the confederation on this subject. If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of those discussions, certainly one of his hon. Friends is aware of that fact. I think that we have consulted fairly fully on this matter—if not at the first stage, certainly at this stage. I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am grateful for what the Minister has said and I agree that we should also consider Lords amendment no. 5 while dealing with this group of amendments. Amendment no. 5 was taken with this group in another place. We are dealing essentially with two separate functions of the community bus services, though they have very much the same motivation.
We welcome the proposals. I accept that it was intended that excursions and


tours should be covered by the Bill and the amendments now express that intention clearly in the Bill.
Licensing provisions in transport are potentially complicated. That will be a familiar argument to those who served on the Standing Committee, but, bearing in mind the considerable ramifications of the Bill, I suggest that after our consideration, we shall not have heard the last of it. So vague are some of its provisions that there will be considerable discussion and dispute about them.
The important aspect of the provisions relating to excursions and tours is the recognition that there is very little money in this form of transport. All of us who take an interest in transport, particularly rural transport and community bus services to transport minority groups, small populations and so on from one place to another, appreciate that in virtually every case there is very little money in it.
The amendments recognise that fact and keep public subsidy to a minimum. My hon. Friends and I very much approve of that.

Mr. Ian Gow: Hear, hear.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I recognise, without turning round, the well-known and not so dulcet tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It is always a comforting thought to know that there is such a voice behind one and I hope that it augurs well for our later discussions.
Public subsidy will be cut to a minimum and if the proposals in the Bill had been a little more adventurous, we could have hoped more positively that there need be no public subsidy at all. However, we welcome the provisions because they go in the right direction.
The uses to which the provisions relating to excursions and tours will be put are commendable in every way. We are dealing with outings of the Women's Institute, a village community or part of an urban community. These are very suitable uses of the Bill's provisions and in some ways it is surprising that we have had to wait until 1978—many years into the use of the motor car and public transport generally—before getting such simple

provisions stipulated and we are able to meet what has seemed a blatantly obvious need for many years.
We welcome also the greater flexibility in transport particularly in country areas, that is provided by the amendments. We have been championing this for some time and all of us who are engaged in transport matters have been round the various courses for two years in the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill in the last Session and in this Bill during the current Session. Throughout our discussions, my hon. Friends and I have championed greater flexibility and since these provisions help to that end, we agree with them.
3.45 p.m.
Amendment no. 5 deals with contract hire and we welcome that for much the same sort of reasons. In an intervention during the Minister' speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) asked about consultations with the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport. We are dealing with potentially complicated matters and I wonder to what extent it is reasonable to expect us—as front-men to the Minister—to appreciate these aspects, particularly when they creep into a Bill—or charge into a Bill—at the Report stage in another place. That is a very late time for such provisions to be inserted, commendable as they may be.
The confederation is the most prominent body dealing with these matters in this country and it has voiced concern. It would have been better if we had considered this matter during the 20 elaborate sittings of the Standing Committee rather than having it bounced at us at this late stage. The Committee stage might have stretched to 21 sittings, but I am sure that the Minister would not have minded that.
Considerable changes in the normal licensing pattern are involved. This was raised in another place and has been taken up by the confederation with the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State who were kind enough to see representatives of the confederation. The Under-Secretary has dealt with the detail of this matter because his has been the principal responsibility.
The relaxation of the PSV requirements in some cases and the sole reliance


upon the road service licence is a departure about which the confederation is extremely concerned. It has put forward proposals which are, to say the least, complicated. I see the Minister nodding his head in sympathetic agreement. I hope that he will intervene in the debate to tell us that he has heard from the confederation about the proposals and that he will watch the development of these departures in the licensing system. The PSV requirements have been important for many years and their relaxation is not unimportant. That provision should have been put into the Bill at an earlier stage.
The vexed subject of the traffic commissioners has concerned us all, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, during each stage of the Bill. The commissioners are singled out, in regard to contract hire, as the main body to protect the Government's overriding policy, which we believe needs questioning and occasional relaxation, of an overwhelming protection of public bus services. The traffic commissioners, being the retired generals they may be, have been chosen to perform this task. The safeguards that have been provided are consistent with the Government's overall policy, but, again, the commissioners are brought in as the body which will not only grant the road service licences, but will supply the safeguards. Amendment no. 5 deals with the various safeguards that the commissioners may recommend if they wish.
I do not know whether I am up the right tree on my next subject, but I believe that I am. With the safeguards expressly included in the Bill by way of a new clause and applying to contract carriage, I am slightly confused about why they do not also apply to excursions and tours. There is a very narrow borderline. In many cases, a contract carriage will be an excursion or tour.
All the safeguards are to be implemented by our mighty traffic commissioners on a regional basis. If they are to do that for contract carriage, why cannot they do it for excursions and tours? Surely exactly the same criteria apply to excursions and tours as to contract carriage. The excursion tour or contract carriage will be for the financial support of a service. In other

words, they will minimise public subsidy. The commissioners have to be satisfied
with a view to the financial support of the service".
It is to be wondered whether the commissioners necessarily form the most satisfactory body to conduct the licensing. From public service vehicles that operate on the boundaries of one council into the boundaries of another, from county to county or nationally, we come to the small bus that is operated, for example, by a village or a community. The commissioners operate regionally and they know the mighty pattern of public transport in the regions, but are they best fitted to decide whether "X" village is to have a bus service and to implement the safeguards? We are left wondering how the system will work out and whether this is yet another example of verbiage being poured into the Bill that at the end of the day will not make the least difference.
The commissioners operate regionally and they are rather remote from the small operators. In practice how can they decide other than that the scheme that is put before them is for the financial support of the service? Indeed, it is possible to say that the service will not be profitable anyway and that it is bound to be in need of financial support. I hazard a guess that many services will need public subsidy in spite of the provisions contained in the Bill and in spite of the fact that they are running excursions and operating contract hire where they can.
The various words of wisdom spoken by my hon. Friends in Committee about the commissioners are relevant to the amendments. Is there a case for local authorities to take over the powers that we are discussing? The cost of going to the commissioners if there is a dispute is such that it would put the unfortunate scheme out of business before it began. That is apart from the remoteness of the commissioners and the fact that they operate regionally.
The local authorities must be considered seriously as being the most suitable licensing authorities to deal with these matters. I feel that I have been speaking long enough to put forward the basic arguments of the Opposition.

Mr. Gow: Go on

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am flattered to hear encouraging cries from my hon. Friends but to delay the House any longer would not be fit.
The proposals before us are welcome as far as they go. They are not radical They do not embrace a wide enough spectrum. They do not deal with certain problems that have been tryingly obvious for many years. For example, they do not bear on commercially operated minibus services that might be operated by local garage owners. They might have minibuses that are used for school transport in the mornings and they might be available to be used for outings later in the day. The Opposition have always had an open mind and, dare I say, a radical attitude to the problems of transport in the rural, specialised and needy areas. It seems that the Government are coming towards us, and we welcome them. May they keep on coming until they achieve a realistic policy.

Several Hon. Member: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has already become clear that the House wishes also to discuss amendment no. 5. At a later stage I shall call amendment no. 5 formally.

Mr. John Ellis: If there is criticism from the Opposition that the amendments do not go far enough, there is a case for the House to consider the other side of the coin before it turns its attention to undertakings such as community buses. Some of the propositions contained in the amendments contain obvious dangers.
I shall read a letter that I received from the Association of District Councils. The letter is headed
Transport Bill: the use of community buses for excursions and tours".
These are technical amendments and I seek some assurances from my hon. Friend on matters of safety. He assured us in Committee that such matters were ever in his mind, but the Association writes:
I am writing to you in the hope that you will he prepared to express when the House receives the Transport Bill from the Lords in its amended form the Association's concern about the possible ramifications of the amendment adopted in that House which allowed community bus services to be extended to cover the provision of excursions and tours.

The ADC's primary concern is to ensure the safety of passengers, particularly as regards the competence of the driver. We believe that it would be dangerous to invite the possible serious consequences following the use on such services of a driver who does not meet the high standards of fitness normally associated with PSV licensed drivers, who would normally be used on licensed excursions and tours. This danger would be especially apparent where, for example, (i) regular volunteer drivers are not available and an inexperienced substitute is inveigled into taking over, or (ii), an unfamiliar vehicle is substituted for the regular one just prior to a journey with, say, manual rather than automatic gearbox. Passengers and others could be put at risk in these circumstances. There have been several well reported cases of deaths arising out of minibus accidents so far this year and although we are not aware of the inquest results in any of these cases, we would urge extreme caution as many drivers will undoubtedly have a higher opinion of their ability to control a heavily loaded minibus than is justified. The EEC rules on drivers hours would not apply and there is a possibility of a driver, having worked all day, then taking out a minibus that he could drive all night.
I have quoted the letter in full because it raises some serious matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure the House that these serious matters are fully noted.
In Committee the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was even further to the right in his opinions than his Front-Bench colleagues. The amendments seek to broaden the main provisions that we discussed in Committee. It may be a slight broadening, but some of us do not know what the ramifications will be. In my area there are complaints about the bus services. I receive letters complaining about infrequent services and buses not appearing. Opposition Members say "All hail to the amendments and the general provision. Everybody can flood on to the market and the drain on the general taxpayer's pocket can be stopped."
I could run a bus service in my constituency without being an entrepreneur of any great expertise. I would lay on minibus services to neighbouring villages. I would provide coach services to bring in steel workers from the villages in the morning and I would have one or two contracts with the county council to take children to school. I would have some other occupation for the rest of the day, or I would sit with my feet up and enjoy a nice little income.
What would happen to the service in my village? What would happen to all those who live in the village who wish to go into town to do their shopping? What


would happen to the old people who want to go into town to get their prescriptions? It is a fact that we have fewer post offices. We have gone down that road so far that people are getting very bad services.
4.0 p.m.
The Government have referred to measures that they are taking to try to improve the situation—for example, by giving grants to county councils. Many of those county councils—my own in particular—have submitted plans for subsidies to bus services. They are mainly Conservative-controlled councils. But, having received money from the Government, they have not paid it out in grants. They have said "What good boys are we. We were elected on the promise that we would keep down the rates. That is what we are doing." Therefore, they are using the money that we have made available for grants for transport services for other purposes.
I am concerned that we should provide as good a service as possible to the people. Because of the changing pattern of rural life, fortunately more people now have cars. But there are fewer people in rural areas, and many still cannot afford cars. Therefore, they need to take advantage of what services are available. The hon. Member for Eastbourne, who has a rural constituency, nods. He knows that village shops and post offices are closing. People now need to get into the towns more than ever before for all kinds of specialist services, many of which are not available in rural areas.
Many transport services are uneconomic. One of my hon. Friends told me about a bus service which served one particular village—a service which was uneconomic and made a loss. Some good people got together, had meetings in the village hall, and arranged to put on a minibus service. They found two retired gentleman to run it. Everyone was delighted. The community was going into action to serve itself. The local bus company opted out of providing the service. All went well to begin with, but what is often entered into with enthusiasm at the first flush is not always sustained. After they had been running the service for a few months and it got round to the winter and it was a question of getting up early in the morning, taking vehicles out on the ice and snow and

coming home late at night—I have no criticism of these people—they said "After all, we are retired. We cannot keep it up. We have bitten off more than we can chew." So that service came to an end. Did the bus company come back with a service? No, it did not. There was bitterness and ill feeling in the village because what had been a marvellous concept had not worked out.
Therefore, I am less than enthusiastic about the ramifications of some of the main ideas in the Bill. Although the amendments, in so far as they are technical, make the achieving of these objects easier, I still have my doubts. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend, in reply, to make specific reference to the safety standards that will operate in these areas. Does he consider that the legislation with the amendments is sufficiently tight? Despite the wide gulf that separates the hon. Member for Eastbourne and me in these matters, I hope that he will not express the view that we should tamper with the safety aspects. I am glad to see him nod. Those who take vehicles out should have the appropriate licences and skills. As the ADC memorandum stated, there should be no possibility that, after a hard day's work, a person will take out a vehicle and finish up driving it all night. Otherwise, the riposte will come back to this House as a result of tragedies.
I nail my colours to the mast. We live in a changing society. However, I do not believe that the amendment will achieve a great extension of services to people in rural areas. I think that there will be a creaming off of the better areas, thus rendering it more difficult for the nationalised bus undertakings and other companies to provide any kind of comprehensive service covering whole areas. We may find ourselves going down that path. Therefore, I urge the House to watch the implications of this measure.
I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House. It would be an ill day if this important measure went through without someone perhaps putting a contrary view by pointing to the implications not only for bus services, but for railway services.

Mr. Gow: One of the misfortunes which afflicts Speakers of the House of Commons is the tradition that they do not attend our debates upstairs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not an affliction.

Mr. Gow: I was about to pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) before paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), because the debate upstairs was characterised by great vigour of expression upon either side.
I express my ready agreement with the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe that, whatever we may do to liberalise the licensing laws, one precondition should be that standards of safety for buses and standards of skill for bus drivers are not only maintained but, if possible extended. Therefore, I find myself somewhat unusually in wholehearted and enthusiastic agreement with the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe.
We need to note at the outset of the debate the virtue and merit of another place. We heard the Under-Secretary of State no less, in the presence of the Secretary of State, actually recommend that the House should agree with the amendments suggested by another place.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in his place. He will not, to our sad loss, be in his place much longer, but he is in his place today. That is why it gives me particular pleasure to pay tribute to another place—a place to which the hon. Member for Handsworth has not always given the warmest praise in the past, as he would always recognise.
One of the marvels of the past four and a half years has been the way in which the Treasury Bench has in some respects moved under the influence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield towards the concept of a free market in the provision of transport. No one who reads the Transport Bill—the House will know what an impartial reader of the Bill I am—could fail to recognise in clause 5 a substantial measure of liberalisation. No one could fail to see in this clause, which permits a community bus to operate in circumstances in which today it cannot, the mind and the heart or part of the mind and part of the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-

field. He is entitled to claim part authorship of clause 5 and more than part authorship of the amendments from another place which have been commended to us by the Under-Secretary of State. Why do we so warmly welcome the amendments? It is because they liberalise still further the reluctant steps taken by the Transport Department.
In preparation for this debate, and possibly in common with the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, yesterday I made a journey on a community bus—the first that I have made. The bus service is well known both to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State. It is called the Cuckmere Community Bus, but on the Sabbath it is called the Rambler bus.
I caught the bus in company with my two sons at Friston Pond. I made the journey to the "Horse and Groom" at Polegate. The cost of that journey for two minors and their aged father was 50p. Others were also travelling upon the bus. It was not like a Southdown bus on a Sunday. This bus was half full. It was a dreadful day. It was pouring with rain in Sussex, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister will be able to testify—and as will the Secretary of State, who was staying at West Wittering. That is in West Sussex, whereas I was in East Sussex, so I was closer to the Prime Minister than the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): It was still raining.

Mr. Gow: I have no doubt that it was raining.
The purpose of my recounting to the House my first expedition in a community bus is to illustrate that these bus services in rural areas are of the greatest value and importance to the travelling citizen. I hope that our acceptance of the amendments will mark the start of a recognition by the House of the need to follow the lead which the Government have set in clause 5 for a progressive and radical liberalisation of our licensing laws.
When the Under-Secretary of State advised the House to accept the amendments, I had the impression that he was doing so with a certain amount of reluctance. We know his views. He is one of


the brightest stars upon the Treasury Bench, but he has to glance over his shoulder and look below the Gangway. I exclude from the term "below the Gangway" the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe and the successor to Lord Glenamara, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). There are Luddites below the Gangway. There are those who do not recognise that the liberalisation of the licensing laws is the greatest service that the House can render.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: How far would the hon. Member go with the liberalisation of the licensing laws? I am sure that many of his hon. Friends would not favour the abolition of the licensing system for certain types of business.

Mr. Gow: I nail my colours firmly to the mast. I answer directly the question put to me by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr Atkins). I should happily abolish the traffic commissioners and all their works with one exception. I should allow their residue, or a new body, to insist that nobody and no company could operate a public transport system unless two crucial criteria were met—that he or she who drove the bus had the necessary qualifications and that the bus itself complied with the strictest safety standards.
I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has arrived, because I have sat at his feet on these matters. He and I believe that the best interests of the travelling public will be served if there is a free market in the provision of bus services, subject only to those two crucial safety elements.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkins: Would the hon. Member apply the abolition of the licences to other types of vehicle?

Mr. Gow: It would be out of order for me to deal with lorries. We are now dealing with buses. I have enunciated my views about licensing for buses. I would allow anybody to run a bus provided that the driver was capable of driving and that the vehicle complied with the strictest safety regulations. No one could accuse

me of having fudged the answer to that question.

Mr. A. P. Costain: What would my hon. Friend do about buses running along narrow country lanes?

Mr. Gow: One of the marvels of mankind is that the magic of the market place will operate even in country lanes. We should allow motor cars to pick up passengers. We should allow—as we have in Cuckmere—volunteer drivers to serve communities, such as those now working for the WRVS and other voluntary organisations who would be only too pleased to drive villagers into the market town. That is to be permitted to a limited extent under the Bill. In a small way, it was permitted in the Minibus Act. If we could go further along that road. we should be able to provide citizens in rural areas with the means which they lack today of getting to towns and larger villages. That is why the Bill is so important. That is why the amendments are so important. They show that the two Ministers have overcome the protests from below the Gangway and recognised that liberalisation is required.
In the past 30 years there has been a dramatic increase in the regulatim and control of bus services. That experiment has failed. The Bill, and the acceptance by the Government of the amendments, are a modest recognition of that failure. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster was right to welcome the amendments.
We have a further hope. We hope that the partial recognition of the need for liberalisation will be extended. We hope that those of us who are on the libertarian and radical wing of the Tory Party will be able to carry with us to further triumphs the Ministers who sit on the Treasury Bench—although sadly, only for the three days that remain in the Session.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: It is remarkable to hear these antediluvian arguments. which I thought had been killed on both sides of the House, about the free play of market forces in transport. There may well be need for that free play in many aspects of economic life, but in transport it is a certain way to destroy regular stage services.
The history of transport, before nationalisation and since, seems to indicate this, because the small operators existing with the free market forces have been mopped up by the bigger operators in the interests of economy. As the public service transport services have become increasingly more expensive and because they have been expected to run regular services, even at times when there is not a great demand for them but as a great service to the community, and because these extraordinary expenses cause public transport to be a greater economic problem than any other sphere of economic activity, it has been necessary to rationalise transport services. Because of this, the smaller operators, operating under free market conditions, have had to give up and their businesses have been taken over by bigger concerns.
This concentration has gone on. Eventually, the great majority of this country's bus services have come under the public sector, because private enterprise could not run those services at a profit.
The problem is that if one goes back to the early stages and allows a private operator who has retired, perhaps, or who has another income, to operate a service during a period when he can take the cream of the traffic, during the rush hour, for instance, or perhaps for special excursions or for contract hire, eventually it means the erosion of the regular services which are provided for the whole community throughout the day.
There is a great danger in this. We must remember that some of the losses of the public transport services are mopped up because they can provide vehicles for excursions and for contract hire. It is for that reason that I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). We are not very doctrinaire about this. We accept the fact that community buses should be allowed contract and excursion work. However, we are asking the Minister to ensure that the losses which are reduced in their undertaking will not increase the losses of the public service vehicle undertakings. This can easily happen.
We know, for instance, that it may well be that public service operators have provided excursions and buses which on the way to the destination would have gone

to some of the outlying villages and picked up and deposited at the end of the excursion. The services which they operate from the little market town may be eroded if there are operators in the hamlets who run bus services independently. If because of the excursion and contract work of the community buses, similar work is reduced by the public service transport operator, this may mean an increase in his losses. It may well also mean a reduction in the services, and sometimes the total annihilation and destruction of the services, as has happened in the past.
This has happened, of course, quite naturally when people have clubbed together in using a car to take them to a certain destination either for work or for pleasure.

Mr. Roger Moate: Would not the annihilation of a loss-making service actually produce a net saving, or, indeed, a profit for the other operator? Therefore, would not the hon. Member compensate someone else?

Mr. Atkins: The fact is that if an operator loses this trade, his losses are increased. If the losses are increased, either a greater subsidy is required—let us remember that the community buses are subsidised—or the operator reduces his services. If this should undermine his position so much that he has to cease the services, the communities will be worse off than previously because people will have to wait for certain hours on certain days before they can travel where they wish to travel. This is a great inconvenience. Already many rural areas have worse public transport services than they had 100 years ago. This is because the annihilation of those services has followed the increasing cost of transport, which has occurred through excessive competition under free market forces.
I have spoken for longer than I intended. However, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the extra powers that are being given to the community bus services will not erode the public service undertakings that are doing a job under difficult conditions.

Mr. John Lee: After listening to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I must say that one of the things that I shall miss


when I am no longer a Member of the House is not hearing the most engaging and rather charming way in which he puts over the most extraordinary Right-wing opinions. When listening to the hon. Member, I was rather reminded of a remark of Hugh Dalton, who once said that there were some supporters of extreme private enterprise who did not believe in traffic lights because they interfered with the law of supply and demand.
Certainly the hon. Member's attitude seemed to be a logical extension of that when he was answering his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). I should not have thought that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was regarded as having very much in common with those of us below the Gangway on the Labour Benches. He raised a perfectly reasonable question about the social implications of the misuse of roads. The hon. Member for Eastbourne brushed him off in just the same way as he would brush us off.
I am tempted to divide the House on this amendment. It seems to me that the Government have engaged in a bit of sleight of hand. They have slipped in a rather important provision or, rather, have allowed the Lords to slip it in and have acquiesced in it. I confess that I was not paying particular attention to what was going on in the other place. I do not know whether these amendments were carried against the Government or were accepted by the Government in the other place. It is whispered to me that this is a Government amendment—which makes it even worse. It is not even as if the Government had accepted the amendment from another source because they feared that they would be defeated if they did not accept it. We shall certainly need to know certain answers before we can allow this to go through without some sort of challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) made mention of one question. It is all very well for a number of people, in a first flush of social enthusiasm, to provide a service which apparently fills the gap in the public service provisions, but that enthusiasm may wane when the difficulties of winter or, perhaps, the tedium of sustained effort, or perhaps financial difficulty, render it more difficult. If in the

meantime, as a result of temporary competition, the public service—which is being rather painfully maintained, perhaps, in circumstances in which, because of dispersal of population over wide areas, it is difficult to make it economically viable—is forced into further retrenchment of services, one ends up in a worse situation after all.
I wish that those who believe in a competitive private enterprise would tell us what happens when the various competitors have been knocked out of the ring. We know that through the weakness of Labour Governments or through strong periods of Conservative government private operators have been allowed to enter the field. Charter air operators have had the picking of the airways. It is interesting to observe that Sir Freddie Laker, who after all appears to be one of the heroes of the Tory Party, has conceded that there are limits to the usefulness of the type of operations in which he himself is—at present, at any rate—a pretty conspicuous operator.
4.30 p.m.
Will my hon. Friend tell us a little more about what is intended in terms of the remit of the traffic commissioners? Is it expected to be a condition of licensing that a new operator will guarantee use of the service for a set period of years? Is that the sort of thing that the traffic commissioners will be expected to demand of an applicant before granting a licence? If not, may we know what is meant in clause A(2) by the use of the phrase
on a regular basis for the purposes of the service"?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sure that in his anxiety to be wholly evenhanded between the operators who are subsidised by the State and those who make their own way the hon. Gentleman would not wish to impose on anyone conditions more onerous than would apply to the public transport system.

Mr. Lee: No, I do not think I would. but I should like to know how long the service would operate. I should like to know whether it was going to be merely a flash in the pan. As regards public transport services, they have to bear the heat and burden of the day of non-viable routes. This is only natural, because we expect that rural areas should be provided with services which are taken for granted


in the towns. It is perfectly reasonable that we should demand to see the colour of the money of those coming forward with these proposals.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lee: No, I will not at the moment. I am addressing my remarks to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman is another Poujade. He can make his own speech in a moment. He need not get so excited. He need not wave his arms quite so excitedly. I am addressing my remarks to the Manifesto group who form the Department of Transport.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hansworth (Mr. Lee) is supposed to be addressing his remarks to you and not to any other body.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) has allowed his enthusiasm to run away with him. The Chair belongs to no group.

Mr. Lee: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a piece of pedantry: the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) knew full well what I meant. My remarks are addressed for the hearing of the Minister and the Under-Secretary, if they are minded to address themselves to the subject.
Subsection (3) of new clause A says:
The licence or permit shall not be granted with an authorisation under subsection (1) unless the commissioners are satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances with a view to financial support of the service.
That seems to be an unexceptionable term, if only one knew what it meant. It seems to be tantamount to saying "How long is a piece of string?" May we have some more precise indication of what is intended? There is not a large body of authoritative case law in this aspect of the work of the traffic commissioners. The minibus service is a fairly recent innovation and, therefore, to some extent we at large in matters of traffic commissioners' case law.
There is limitation as to the number of persons involved. It must be at least six and not more than 16. To some extent this invariably provides some indication of

the size of vehicle. It would have been helpful if there had been some indication with regard to physical size, having regard to the fact that many roads in rural areas, even to this day, are not very wide. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, safety arises not only in the sense of the competence of the operator and the vehicle's roadworthiness. The size and the use of the vehicle on roads which are inappropriate because of the narrowness of carriageway are factors which have a bearing on road safety and on the question of accident prevention and hazards.
Unless I receive some very good answers to these questions, the Lords amendment will not go through with quite the murmur of unanimity that I think the Minister expected.

Mr. Onslow: I had not intended to intervene, but it has been made necessary for me to do so by the curious reluctance of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) to give way and let me make one or two simple points and I hope that the House will not mind if I detain it for a few moments.
What worries me about the hon. Gentleman's attitude to these matters is that he enters the Chamber in the most orthodox of garbs and propounds the most unorthodox of opinions. He has been doing so for a long time. I do not know who will take his place in this no doubt necessary role.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have some extraordinary ideas on the subject of competition and the position which should be accorded to the public sector above all. He has some very odd ideas as to what actually has happened in some areas of rural bus services. If it is of interest to him—it may not be, but it should certainly educate him—I could take him to a part of the country not 50 miles from here where over 15 years ago the public service operator abandoned the loss-making service and left a number of local communities with no bus service. There was no question of the operator being forced by the traffic commissioners to continue the service. There was no power in the traffic commissioners to force the operator to do any such thing. It would be ludicrous to suggest that they had any such power.
As I was the local councillor at the time and the villagers wanted a bus service, we broke a few rules and we hired a bus. We were persecuted by the inspectors, so we used the church bus for a while. That was persecuted by the inspectors. Then a very public-spirited local citizen obtained for himself a public service vehicle licence and a bus and ran a community bus service, in effect, over a considerable mileage of the routes which had been abandoned by the public service operator. I am happy to say that that service is still running. I do not know how the gentleman concerned, who is a busy consultant psychiatrist at one of the local hospitals, manages to do this. It is a considerable testimony to what can be done by the private sector and by voluntary effort coming in and picking up the bits when a public service operator has completely abandoned local communities.
I do not want anything to happen under the Bill or under the Lords amendments which will be likely to make such an event more difficult in the future. What concerns me about certain provisions in the amendment and about certain provisions in the Bill is that if competition is to be intensified against the marginal operator—the private operator who has come in to pick up a service and who has been running it on a shoestring for a long time, perfectly safely, but not necessarily very profitably—that will not necessarily be to the public advantage. Therefore, I hope that whatever happens the private sector will not be subjected to unfair competition.

Mr. John Ellis: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present at the time I made my speech. He is now making exactly the point that I made, except that he is now making it for the smaller entrepreneur whereas I was making it for the larger bus companies. This is what we all fear.

Mr. Onslow: It is always a matter of pleasure and surprise to me to find myself agreeing with people whose views I do not know. I am correspondingly delighted to find that the hon. Member would have carried me with him in my absence. I think that there is room for unease on this question and I shall be interested to. hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Mr. Horam: By leave of the House. may I speak again? It is not the usual custom for a Minister to wind up a debate on a Lords amendment as well as to open it, but in view of what has been said on both sides of the House I think that I should say a few words.
First, I respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), who asked for an assurance about safety. I agree with him absolutely that safety standards must not slip. That is a view which has been advanced by hon. Members on both sides throughout our debates on community minibus services.
Community minibuses will in fact be more restricted in the journeys which they may undertake than are minibuses operating under permits under the Minibus Act. We shall ensure that the essential safety requirements will be plainly set out in the regulations to be made for these buses. The drivers will have to be over 21 years of age and have a current full, not provisional, driving licence. The vehicles themselves will have to meet the safety elements of the existing public service vehicle regulations. Moreover, we shall be producing a booklet giving advice on the setting up of community minibus schemes, and in that booklet we shall recommend the organisers to enlist the professional assistance of their local bus operators in selecting suitable drivers.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) for an assurance about the effect of community minibuses on existing stage services. We come here to the whole point of putting the operation of community minibuses under the aegis of the traffic commissioners. Much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), this essential safeguard remains, and the traffic commissioners, in deciding whether to grant a permit or licence for a community minibus, will have regard to the effect of the community minibus on the operations of any existing operators, whether they be large subsidiaries of the National Bus Company or small, marginal operators such as those to which the hon. Member for Woking referred.
If there is likely to be any creaming-off effect on those other services, the traffic


commissioners will take that into account and may in certain circumstances not grant a permit. That is why the hon. Member for Eastbourne wants to abolish them, but my view, which, I think, has support on both sides of the House—the hon. Gentleman's view has the support of only a very restricted part of the House, if I may say so, without being unfair— is that we should keep the traffic commissioners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hands-worth asked precisely what was meant by the words in subsection (3)—
unless the commissioners are satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances with a view to financial support of the service.
The point is that many of these community minibus schemes, although they may have volunteer drivers, will not be able to support themselves exclusively out of their fares on their normal stage carriage operations, and they may therefore from time to time hire themselves out to, say, an old-age pensioners' club or a Women's Institute for the purpose of excursions. This will add to their income and make the service more readily viable.
To the extent that minibus schemes are able to do that, the service will be more likely to pay its way and there will accordingly be a smaller subsidy demanded from the county council, and it is likely that more minibus schemes will be brought into being if a smaller subsidy is required for any particular service.
The traffic commissioners will therefore look into the finances of the community minibus in question and decide whether they should allow it to indulge in such excursions or private contract service to help meet its costs, which will be minimised in any event by the use of volunteer drivers.
One cannot be more specific in the legislation than that. The traffic commissioners will look at the particular circumstances of community minibuses in deciding whether to allow that additional facility.

Mr. Lee: What about the length of time to which a would-be operator would commit himself?

Mr. Horam: I think that the traffic commissioners will have a general remit to keep the service under review, and if

they feel that this aspect is in any way being abused they will, I am sure, take that into account
Next, I was asked about the size of minibuses. I inaugurated a new minibus service at the end of last year in a part of Devon. If my lion. Friend the Member for Handsworth knows that part of the country, he will be aware how narrow are the roads and how high are the hedges. The minibus in question, which was of the maximum size, negotiated those roads quite satisfactorily. Therefore, if a minibus can manage roads of that character, other such buses will, I am sure, successfully negotiate most roads in the country
I believe that the sort of minibus which we are talking about is well tailored to the type of road we find in the more remote parts. I hope, indeed, that manufacturers of community minibuses will be able to standardise now and adopt a pattern which will enable their buses to be produced rather more cheaply so that community minibus operators or county councils, as the case may be, can buy them more cheaply.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) asked me for an assurance about the way we propose to bring in the provisions regarding private hire. He pointed out that the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport had advocated a rather different way of approaching this matter, a way which would have meant that we did not have this debate at all because we would not need these Lords amendments but could proceed under existing legislation. However, we felt that it was more straightforward to make quite explicit what the Government intended instead of achieving our objective by encouraging operators to put themselves outside the existing restrictions on private hire and thus become subject to the road service licensing provisions, which was the alternative way that the confederation put forward.
We believe that ours is the better way, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall watch developments—I think that that was his phrase—and if we turn out to be wrong we can certainly look at the matter again, or some future Government can look at it again. At the moment I think it right to make explicit what we intend and to operate in an open way


rather than encourage people to break regulations and thus come under a different technical part of the Bill.
I believe that these provisions are balanced, and certainly, as I judge the tenor of the debate today, they seem to accord with the general spirit on both Front and Back Benches on both sides. They represent a balanced approach to the serious problems which we have in remote rural areas, and I am sure that they will therefore commend themselves to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to Lords amendments nos, 2, 3 and 4, to be moved formally. In addition there is also Lords amendment no. 5, which Mr. Speaker indicated should be dealt with in the same grouping. Have I the leave of the House to put the Question on all four altogether?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Lords amendments nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6

CAR-SHARING FOR SOCIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 8. line 43, after ("Act") insert
(",in sections 270 or 271 of and Schedule 5 to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely technical amendment. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which regulates private hire vehicles in England and Wales, does not extend to Scotland. Thus, by inserting a reference to a Scottish Act, which has been used in certain cases to control private hire vehicles, we ensure that the provisions of this clause can be applied to Scotland as well as to England and Wales.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have misheard what you or Mr. Speaker said, but what happens regarding Lords amendments nos. 7 and 25?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall reach those in due course. Perhaps I may

explain the matter. They are grouped and will be moved formally at the appropriate point when their number is reached on the Amendment Paper.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 7 agreed to.

Clause 8

LORRIES

Lords amendment: No. 8 in page 9, line 30, after ("of") insert (",and Schedule 4 to,")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose here is simply to put in a cross-reference. It is a piece of editorialising.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

DRIVERS' HOURS (EEC RULES)

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 9, line 44, at end insert new Clause B—
("B. In section 96 of the 1968 Act (restrictions on drivers' hours), after subsection (11A) (added by the European Communities Act 1972, with a view to penalising contraventions of the applicable Community rules), there shall be inserted—
(11B) But a person shall not be liable to be convicted under subsection (11A) if—

(a) he proves the matters specified in paragraph (i) of subsection (11); or
(b) being charged as the offender's employer or a person to whose orders the offender was subject, he proves the matters specified in paragraph (ii) of that subsection.".")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes available to drivers and employers operating within the scope of the EEC rules on drivers' hours the same statutory defences against contravention of those rules as are available to drivers and employers operating entirely under part VI of the Transport Act 1968. Thus the clause inserted by the amendment has the effect of bringing the enforcement provisions of the EEC on regulated work into line with those for work regulated by domestic regulation under the Act of 1968.
We brought forward this amendment in the Lords following representations from the Freight Transport Association. I think that it meets the approval of the trade unions and the employers.

Mr. Peter Fry: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made an important point earlier when he paid credit to the other House and its value in relation to the Bill. The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble Friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for moving the amendment. Although one would have liked the Government to make it, we must give them credit for having accepted it.
We think that a very important point of principle has been recognised in the amendment, simply because the statutory defences which have been recognised in our transport legislation for over 40 years would have ceased to apply where vehicles were being driven under the new Community rules if the amendment had not been made.
Here I would add a word of criticism. The Government have known full well that the whole question of the implementation of the drivers' hours legislation, which we shall talk about later tonight, would give rise to a whole series of anomalies. On Second Reading I criticised the way in which the Bill had been drafted and the considerable lack of thought, in view of the enormous amount of time there had been before the Bill came before the House. Although we give the Government credit for having accepted the amendment, they should have foreseen the situation that has arisen.

Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not being discourteous to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) when I say that the amendment is tightly drafted. There is talk in the rules of "unforeseen circumstances" and certain accommodations that can be made. I shall express some views on the general subject of the complexity of licensing and the response of the Government and the Opposition. If the debate is to be allowed to run wide, I hope that all hon. Members taking part will be able to range widely. However, it seems to me that we are discussing a matter that is fairly restricted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Chair must see how hon. Members develop their arguments. As long as they keep within the rules of order and within the scope of the amendment, all will be well. Otherwise, the Chair will intervene.

Mr. Fry: I have no wish to extend this debate much wider. I think that we shall have the opportunity later this evening, perhaps much later, to go into these matters in much greater detail. I wanted only to make the point that an important question of principle had been decided, that in my view the Government should have taken the initiative and that it should not have been left to an outside body to see the inevitable consequences of their legislation.
Having said that, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the amendment and am very pleased that the Government have accepted it.

Mr. John Ellis: I bear your ruling in mind, Mr. Speaker.
The criticism we have just heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) about the late stage at which the amendment was made comes ill from a member of a party that is a part-felon on the matter of how we come to be involved in these extremely complicated regulations dealing with drivers' hours and what is and what is not permitted. The whole sin in the present position is the Common Market legislation, and the Opposition Front Bench must take its share of the blame for getting us into this ball game.
Important as the concessions are—and I do not wish to oppose them—we come on to dangerous ground when we allow excuses such as unavoidable delay in completing a journey due to unforeseen circumstances. That paints matters with a broad brush in an area where the law is specific.
We often face the necessity for such an amendment because the EEC regulaticns are so embracing. For an employer charged with causing or permitting his driver to breach the rules, the breach arises because the driver has carried out periods of driving on duty otherwise than in his employment of which he—the employer—was not aware or could not reasonably have become aware.
How far down the line do we go with that argument? It seems unexceptionable at first thought, but if somebody is responsible under regulations covering what somebody in his employment does, he has some responsibility in the matter—whether it is in a nationalised undertaking, the Civil Service or anywhere else. For example, it is part of the doctrine of the House that if the sin is committed in a Minister's Department the Minister accepts responsibility.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not in this Government.

Mr. Ellis: That is the doctrine of the House. If I were an employer of somebody charged with serving the public, and if he were fiddling the public or conning them, I should take it as part of my responsibility.
I have no rooted objection to the proposal, but the question of dealing with drivers' hours and the legislation must be a full-time job. It is no longer sufficient to be interested in transport generally. Employers need to understand the ramifications of drivers' hours and conditions and everything emanating from the Common Market. I should imagine that each firm or nationalised enterprise will need a full-time adviser on the domestic legislation and the EEC regulations.
The procedure is unsatisfactory. I do not see how any employer or employee can have the necessary knowledge to allow him to work in the unsatisfactory position into which we have got ourselves on legislation concerning drivers' hours and what drivers are permitted to do.
It ill becomes the Opposition Front Bench to offer criticisms. When Conservative Members wax lyrical about the Government's deficiencies, they should think of where they stood on the Common Market and all its works. Criticism should come only from those who took a stand similar to mine and that of some of my hon. Friends and some notable exceptions on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition must share the burden of blame with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am harsher with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary than I am with other

Ministers, because my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend played a murky part in their eagerness to get us into the Common Market.

Mr. Lee: I endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has said. Absolute offences are a part of the law that one frequently encounters. One tends to regard this as the type of offence connected with the food and drug regulations whereby, for various reasons, if a breach is committed that is sufficient for the purposes of a conviction and, whatever the mitigation, the offence is made out.
I infer from the blurb which has been obligingly provided that a different defence may be available for a breach of the European Community drivers' regulations as opposed to a breach of the domestic law. If I am wrong about that, the Minister will no doubt put me right. It is odd that there should be two criteria by which proof of a criminal offence may be supported depending on whether the legislation is of a domestic kind emanating from this House or imposed on us by our Common Market masters.
5.0 p.m.
The defences seem to be somewhat loose. It may be that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. One would like to see what a court would regard as "unforeseeable circumstances". That phrase is as difficult to define as it is to define "reasonableness". The terms "reasonable man" or "reasonable circumstance" or "reasonable defence" are among the most tautologous phrases that a lawyer can use. We use them, I suppose, because we give up the attempt to define what is often almost indefinable. This is an invitation to vagueness, to an evasion of the law, to a whittling down of its impact.
I should be interested to know how an employer who properly plans his work programme will avail himself of the defence which allows him to say that he was not aware or could not have been aware that the journey was not likely to have been achieved except by a breach of the hours limitation. It may well be that where a genuinely meritorious instance occurs there is a case for the court imposing a conditional or absolute discharge. That is a not infrequent device


resorted to in cases where an offence has been made out but where it is clear that it is not made out in a moral sense.
I share the concern that has already been expressed about the intention of the Government, bearing in mind the wide and imprecise nature of the offences. I find it all the more unsatisfactory when such offences are made referable to Common Market law rather than domestic law. I know that the Secretary of State is a Common Marketeer and may be inhibited from making an objective assessment of the situation. I am hoping for the best.

Mr. Robert Adley: The Prime Minister is much given to quoting poets. I shall misquote slightly. Kipling it was who wrote:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,".
It seems that certain hon. Members have revised that slightly so that it now reads:
If you can keep your seat when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,".
There is a constant attempt to blame the European Community for all our problems. That carries little weight with many Opposition Members and members of the public.
I feel sorry for the Secretary of State. He is faced with overt hostility from such Cabinet colleagues as his right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment. Their hostility to the European Community is known because they never stop promoting it. No one should be surprised if, as a result, the Secretary of State for Transport finds it difficult if not impossible to negotiate happily with the Community. We are always giving the impression that the majority of the members of the Government have as their overriding priority the destruction of the EEC and the damnification of all its works. No wonder they do not help as much as they might.

Mr. Horam: By leave of the House, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), may I say that we are providing the same defence for the EEC regulation offence as is already available for Transport Act offences. The Opposition, when in Gov-

ernment, did not include the offences as amendments to the Transport Act in the European Communities Act 1972.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

CONTROL OF OFF-STREET PARKING

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 10, line 1, leave out clause 9.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may also discuss the Government amendment to Lords amendment no. 10, in page 10, line 34, at end insert—

"(3A) Any such Order shall also require councils—


(a) to consult organisations representative of the disabled before deciding to propose tie designation of a controlled area under the Order; and
(b) if representations are received from such organisations about the proposal, to send to the Secretary of State (together with copies of representations received from other organisations consulted) a statement of how parking requirements of the disabled arising from implementation of the proposal are met by existing facilities or, if in the opinion of the council they are not already so met, how it is intended to meet them.".—

and Lords amendment no. 23, in page 17, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 32.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not intend to rehearse the familiar arguments about parking control. We have been over them many times and I do not believe that this is an appropriate time to run a well-worn course. There were many clear differences of opinion in another place. The Government held one view about the proposals then included in the Bill and a majority of noble Lords held another.
I have to say—and I say it with reluctance and no disrespect to the other House—that I have found no new, inspiring or persuasive ideas in what was said in the debate in the other place. There was no distilled wisdom, no profound insight, no fresh interpretation and no exciting vision. In other words, having read the remarks of the noble Lords, I was neither wiser nor better informed


than I had been after listening to the debates in this place.
I confess, although this may be an inadequate reason of itself to be moving disagreement with the Lords, that I would prefer not to capitulate to the rather routine arguments of Lord O'Hagan when I had resisted the blandishments of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I always do my best to be generous towards him, even amenable. I have a great regard for him, as I must have after the long time we have spent together in the House of Commons. It always hurts me to hurt him in any matter. If I was obliged to hurt the hon. Gentleman, as I am afraid I did when I opposed his proposals on this matter, how far short I would fall of the high standards of this place and the affections it generates if I were now to say that, where the hon. Gentleman failed, Lord O'Hagan should succeed? It is for that reason, if no other, that I must ask the House to accept my advice.
These are old and familiar arguments. We have been discussing the question of parking and its appropriate place in traffic management for over 20 years. I remember, when I was a young, inarticulate and shy member of the Marylebone council, joining in supporting the large and formidable majority in favour of introducing parking meters into the streets of Marylebone. I did so because Mr. Harold Watkinson, now Lord Watkinson, who was then Minister of Transport, indicated—he was the first Minister of Transport to do so—the need for new restrictions on on-street parking. I think that he first advocated on-street parking and meters over 22 years ago.
Then Mr. Ernest Marples made clear, as Minister of Transport, that he was a supporter of the strict control of parking. I should like to take this opportunity, the first in a transport debate since his death, to pay tribute to the important and valuable, work done by Lord Marples at a time when we were coming to terms with the motor car for the first time. I make it clear that that was street parking as an important part of traffic management.

Mr. Adley: Is not the simple point that street parking is on ground in public ownership whereas off-street parking is not? Is not that the crux of the argument?

Mr. Rodgers: Indeed, it is not, unless we are concerned only with the question of the invasion of property rights. Although that is a question that we may want to discuss from time to time, we are not considering it now. We are discussing the proper management of parking to ensure better traffic management, and better traffic management sometimes involves less road building, which itself encroaches on private property. So we want to look at this matter in traffic management terms.
I mentioned Lord Watkinson and Lord Marples for one purpose. In the other place, it was argued that to move in this direction was only the thin edge of the wedge. If there is a wedge and it has a thin end, that wedge and the thin end were evident 22 years ago, when the idea of restricting parking, whether on or off the streets, was accepted as a necessary part of traffic management. So I do not think that there should be so little confidence in the power of this House, or, for that matter, the power of another, to decide when to call it a day and not to proceed with very important measures.
I do not want to rehearse the arguments again. I will say only that, in the first place, one cannot have effective management of traffic in towns unless one has management of parking as well, and that, secondly, it is desirable—and I have not changed my view of this—that there should be a large measure of local option in this matter.
Looking back at the Second Report of the Select Committee on Expenditure for the 1972–73 Session, I was struck by the evidence given by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment. His evidence is recorded in the minutes of evidence in Volume 2. It was given on 22nd June in that Session. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he thought local authorities should be permitted to control private off-street car parking, and he replied:
They already have it in London, and I think that elsewhere they would need to have that power.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's view when he carried responsibility for car parking under the last Conservative Government.
I am sorry to have had to bring that evidence to the attention of the hon.


Member for Sutton Coldfield, because I am afraid that he is somewhat embarrassed by the revelation, but that was the position six years ago, and apart from remarks made by the hon. Gentleman in our debates on this Bill there has been no suggestion that a Conservative Government, were one ever to be elected, would not feel it necessary to move in this direction. I have much greater faith in local democracy, both in the common sense of local authorities and in the power of the electorate to turn them out if they do not behave in a sensible manner. I have much too much faith in them to believe that it is wrong to give them the opportunity to decide what is best for their own localities.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reference to the common sense of local authorities, and I agree with him. The only point at issue between us is that this is restricted to county councils. Why do we not bring in councils at borough level to a much greater extent?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend made that important point, with which I have great sympathy, in previous stages of our discussion of this Bill. The simple answer is that the Bill would not be the appropriate place for us to change the present division of powers between the two tiers of local government. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been considering what might best be done. He has been in some discussion with me and other ministerial colleagues on the matter, but, as long as the distribution of powers remains as it is, it is appropriate in this Bill—it is the only quick way of doing it—to give this power to the counties. But I take my hon. Friend's point, and I think that there is much validity in it.
I wish for these reasons to restore the clause as it was previously drafted, except that I am proposing an important amendment to it. As I have said, I found it difficult to see any new ideas in the debate in the House of Lords, but in Committee there concern was expressed that car park licensing might affect the mobility of the disabled, who are depen-

dent on the use of cars to get them into town centres. I recognise that the disablcd, both drivers and passengers, are particularly vulnerable to traffic restraint measures, and I am anxious that when authorities use their licensing powers they give proper consideration to the special needs of the disabled.
Accordingly, the clause as reintroduced contains a new subsection which requires an authority, when initiating a licensing scheme, to consult organisations representing the disabled, and if such organisations object to the scheme the authority must, in forwarding its objections to me, inform me what it already has done in order to meet the needs of the disabled or what it proposes to do. I shall then have an opportunity to consider whether the provisions are adequate, and if they do not appear to be so there are opportunities for me to intervene and require the draft regulations to be amended. That is one respect in which I hope the House will feel that I am making a concession, and one of a kind that is wholly appropriate. I have no sense that I am doing it under duress.
Perhaps I may try further to mollify some of the anxieties. In deciding to reintroduce the clause, I have carefully considered the argument put forward in both Houses and by the interests involved that a public inquiry should be mandatory at the draft regulation stage. I have concluded that there is no case for such a radical departure from traffic regulation practice—that will not be news to the House. Moreover, my discretion as to whether to hold a public inquiry is an inherent feature of a scheme already extensively debated and sanctioned by Parliament.
However, my Department will issue guidance which will make it clear that the power should be used only to relieve the most congested urban centres where local authorities are already using their existing powers to control parking to the full. In other words, this power will not be perversely exercised. I do not believe that it would be, but this is a safeguard which I think that the House will welcome, and I give my undertaking in that respect. If any authority proposed to use the powers in other circumstances, I would consider very carefully whether there was a need for me to intervene.

Mr. Costain: Has the Secretary of State taken into account the fact that before planning permission was given to erect the building, the local authority insisted on a car park being incorporated in part of the building? Would that be considered to be conclusive evidence not to restrict what the owner had put in at the request of the local authority?

Mr. Rodgers: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is referring to proposals, which are not included in the Bill. for the restriction of non-residential car parking. I think that that is what he has in mind. That would not be appropriate to this legislation. But if there are privately operated public car parks in buildings which have been constructed. the sort of consideration that he has in mind would be brought to bear. But we are not considering any question other than regulations, and there is no question of taking away planning permission that has already been given. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that the proposals I am making today are worthy of his support because they do not encroach on that ground.
I think that the House as a whole, having debated the Bill and knowing that we shall amend it in relation to the disabled and having given the reassurances that I have put on the record, will be prepared to agree with the Government and disagree with the Lords amendment in this respect.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Touched as I am by the Secretary of State's tribute. I should tell him that if his only reason for rejecting the Lords amendment is the fear of offending me he should not allow that to stand in his way. That was about the best argument that he made.
We welcome the concession for the disabled. This is an argument that we have put forward consistently since the clause was first introduced. I pay tribute particularly to Peter Large for the work that he has done on this matter. The concession has been very much at the eleventh hour, but nevertheless it is welcome. However. it does not meet our case in opposing this clause. We still believe that the clause should go in its entirety, and we shall vote on that.
The only thing that can be said about the Secretary of State's argument is that each time he uses it. we on this side of

the House gain more support. The House of Lords is a case in point. Baroness Stedman dutifully repeated his arguments in the other place and the clause was promptly thrown out. The Secretary of State may say that he is not very surprised about that, but I think that he should study the voting lists in the House of Lords.
The clause was defeated, not just by the Conservative peers but with the support of the Liberal peers. The significance of that was not only that the Liberals in the Commons voted in favour of the clause, but that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) apparently went through the Bill line by line with the Government when it was presented. It is true that we had to explain to him what one or two of the measures actually meant, but the Bill had the official seal of approval of the Liberal Party. In spite of this, the Liberals in the Lords voted against it.
There were some very Prominent names among those Liberals. There were Lord Wade, former deputy leader of the Liberal Party; Lord Mackie of Benshie, former chairman of the Scottish Liberal Party; and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, former chairman and president of the Liberal Party and many more besides. So we shall wait with interest to see what the Liberals do when we divide on this matter later this evening. I suspect that they will either abstain or retain their first position. thus enabling them to go to the country with their slogan of "Vote Liberal and we shall give you the biggest permutation of contradictory votes known to man".

Mr. Stephen Ross: When will the hon. Member tell us that he will bring forward a sensible transport policy for dealing with traffic in the inner urban areas? When he does that we shall listen to him with great interest.

Mr. Fowler: I am most interested in what the hon. Member has said. I shall refer him to the transport policy that we have. produced which is rather more than the Liberals have produced. When he has studied our policy, I am sure that he will give us his support.
Why does the Secretary of State get so uptight about this clause? The Secretary of State has not been conspicuously successful in getting his decisions past his Cabinet colleagues. His support for any


cause is normally the kiss of death for that cause—Blennerhassett, seat belts, excess fares. On all these he has been overruled. But if it kills him, he will get this clause on to the statute book.
What then is his case essentially? It is that he is doing nothing wrong. He is simply giving the local authorities a permissive power to control private car parks. His argument is that, because it is permissive, nobody should worry.
That is an extraordinary assumption. The first question to be answered is whether the powers are necessary. This House does not and should not give permissive powers unless it is convinced that those powers should be given. If the powers are unnecessary then there is no case—whether they are permissive or not is irrelevant. To judge whether they are necessary, we look at experience with them.
That means looking at the situation in London. London is the only city which is, in the Secretary of State's words, "free to enjoy them". At present the GLC has powers to control the hours of opening, scale of charges and the length of stay of a motorist in a private car park. The case is that those powers have been so successfully exercised that every local authority should have them.
To some it might seem a slight flaw in the Secretary of State's argument that the GLC, in fact, does not exercise the powers and has given them up deliberately. It is prepared to see the powers scrapped altogether. The reason that the Conservative-controlled GLC has scrapped these controls is that when Mr. Daly and the Labour-controlled GLC exercised them there was a public outcry. The public protested at the indiscriminate nature of the controls and there was no evidence that they had any good effect, least of all in forcing people on to public transport which was their presumed aim.
Therefore, London hardly provides much support for the Secretary of State. The only comparative scheme was in Nottingham in 1975–76. Very elaborate controls were set up to prevent motorists entering the city and the result was extensively reported in three reports by the Government's own Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The laboratory reported:

the scheme largely failed to achieve its two main objectives…reduced bus journey times between residential zones and the City Centre by less than one minute…no significant changes were observed in the means of travel.
In other words, it was a failure, and what is more it was a failure which cost the ratepayers £280,000.
Above all, the fact is that these two schemes were both rejected by the public —the consumer or the transport user. In London, the chief author of the Labour scheme was Mr. Jim Daly and in Nottingham the chief author was Mr. Frank Higgins. Both schemes were rejected by the local transport users, yet what have the Government done? They have appointed both men to the Central Transport Consultative Committee to represent transport users nationally. That is the reward that they have been given. Mr. Higgins is the paid chairman and last month Mr. Daly was appointed to the committee—happily in an unpaid capacity.
It is stupid party political-appointments of that kind which give quangos a bad name in this country. There is no evidence to support the extension of powers. All the evidence points the other way. There is even a financial price to be paid by the taxpayer and the ratepayer. Clearly, if hours of opening are limited in the privately operated car parks, these car parks will sustain loss and compensation will be paid out of public funds. The Government accept that this is so.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). His case on Report was that there was something deeply sinister about the attitude that the Conservative Party was taking. He said then:
I remember seeing somewhere that National Car Parks is a considerable contributor to Conservative funds. I am open to correction about that, but if that is the case, we begin to understand where the Opposition's interests lie."—[Official Report, 17th May, 1978; Vol. 950, c. 497.]
It is as well that we do not look to the hon. Member for reliable information in this House. The fact is that National Car Parks does not contribute to Conservative Party funds and does not make any contribution to any political party. Such information was available to the hon. Member simply by lifting a telephone. But he chose not to check and


I am sure that he is about to withdraw his comments.

Mr. John Ellis: It is not a question of withdrawing my comments. I asked a question. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has just made my case. Had he had the knowledge, he could have said on Report that my comments were not true. The significant thing is that my comments fit in with the analysis, and he thought that they were true. In the private sector the money-making consideration overrides any thought of sensible planning in our cities and towns.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member's response is altogether typical of him. He has been proved wrong but he has not the courage to admit that he was incorrect. He is simply prepared to smear and not to withdraw that smear. We choose to give him our award of "investigative booby of the year."
The last Labour manifesto contained the pledge to make the nation less dependent upon the private car. That remains the policy of the Labour Party today. This was set out in the statement of the party's national executive committee last month. To achieve this, the party wants stringent traffic management schemes. It welcomes the plan to license privately operated car parks, but sees it as only a first stage. The next stage will be to control private non-residential parking.
Powers will then be taken to control office car parks, and virtually everybody parking in an office car park will need a permit to be bought at local authority offices. A new body of inspectors will then be formed to check that permits are being displayed. That is the brave new world which the national executive of the Labour Party has in mind.
5.30 p.m.
It might be thought that at least the Secretary of State for Transport would not support such a scheme. Nobody pretends that the right hon. Gentleman is the darling of the Labour Party executive. But not a bit of it. He, too, wants this scheme. Basically, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that this measure is stage 1 of his parking controls, and that stage 2 will mean controls on office car parks.
That brings me to a central conflict in the Secretary of State's case. He claims

the support of bodies of all kinds. I pointed out in May that not all his support stands up to scrutiny. In Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport claimed the support of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. A check with Miss Shelagh Roberts, the transport and planning chairman of the AMA, proved this to be totally untrue—in other words, that statement was totally without foundation.
The Government have not sought to deny the opposition to this proposal expressed by the motoring organisations, such as the RAC and AA. Nobody pretends that mass rallies are taking place throughout the country in favour of these controls. The humbug of the Government's case lies in the suggestion that they care a jot what the public think. Their proposals for private non-residential parking have been condemned—the local authorities do not want them, nor do the police or the public. However, has this affected the Government's attitude? The answer is in the negative. The Government want to push these proposals through. This will not happen before an election, but if Labour wins that is precisely what they will do, whether or not public opinion is with them.
Happily, that election will prevent the Labour Party from putting into effect stage 2. Today the House has an oppotunity to defeat stage 1, and I urge it to take it. The case has not been made out and the powers should not be given.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) tried to raise the bogy that this was one stage towards controlling private non-residential parking. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wanted to go all the way but, for various reasons, was unable to go that far. The subject of private non-residential parking is a wholly different matter. It will rest on its own merits if and when it is raised in this House. Public non-residential parking can be discussed on its own merits today.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no mass rally in favour of the Government's proposal. I am certain from my contacts that there is no mass rally against the proposal.
In other words, this proposal is not causing immense interest outside the House.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that my right hon. Friend did not care a jot what the public were or were not saying about this matter. The essence of what my right hon. Friend is doing is to give authority to locally elected councillors—in other words, to the democratically elected people on the spot—to exercise the power if they so wish. What can be more responsive to public opinion than that? That is the spirit in which my right hon. Friend is approaching the matter.
I am puzzled by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to deny to local authorities the possibility of regulating public off-street parking. It is an astonishing proposition that whatever may be the local circumstances, whatever the people on the spot think, the hon. Gentleman knows best—and certainly the suggestion that Whitehall or whatever body the hon. Gentleman claims to speak on behalf of—the RAC, the AA or Miss Shelagh Roberts—know what is best for every county authority throughout the country. with local councillors being denied the opportunity to exercise any powers in this respect.
The hon. Gentleman's view is that the evidence points the other way. He believes that there is no local pressure for this move, and cited the Greater London Council. We all know that there has been an unfortunate change of control in that council. However, the situation will be put right in the not too distant future.
The hon. Gentleman's opposition to these proposals is dogmatic and nondemocratic. In my view, the control which is now possible for local councilors can be an essential tool in local traffic management schemes in respect of essential planning at local level. I fully support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Adley: It was nerhaps a Freudian coincidence that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) was called to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). who referred to the possibility of having

to apply to one's local authority for a parking permit in the event of another Labour Government. I was restrained from intervening in my hon. Friend's speech, but I am constrained to add that it might be only a matter of time before the matter were dealt with, not by the local authority, but by that red dragon of a Welsh computer in Swansea.

Mr. Anderson: What possible relevance have vehicle excise duty and driving licences, the two areas of responsibility in Swansea, to the matter under discussion?

Mr. Adley: I suppose the answer o that question is, none, except in Socialist logic. As the computer exists, the Government will have to find work for it to do. We must have in mind the views of our constituents and what concerns them about traffic problems. I am sure that Members receive more letters about the Swansea computer than about car parking problems.
This is a comparatively simple matter of political attitudes. When the Secretary of State for Transport ponders the question why the Conservative Party is yet again pursuing this subject, I believe that I can answer the question for him. It has to do with attitudes towards legislation. The Labour Party's attitude to legislation is "When in doubt, do it": the Conservative Party's attitude is "When in doubt, don't". As we have seen from the GLC example, it is a waste of everybady's time for Parliament to legislate to give power to local authorities, for local authorities to find those powers unusable, and ultimately for those powers to be repealed.
Politeness prevents my trying to deduce the Liberal Party's attitude towards legislation. bearing in mind what was said a little earlier about the actions of Liberal peers in another place. Perhaps the Liberal attitude could he best summarised as "When in doubt, let us see whether there are votes in it and let us do whatever we think is likely to be the most popular". That is no way to run a transport policy or anything else.
The suggestion that this proposal would be a first step towards the acquisition of powers by local authorities to take over private property for purposes of traffic management is a real threat. People would do well to be aware of that danger.
The Secretary of State for Transport, in answering a question by his hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), said that these powers would not be devolved downwards to district councils. I know that the Chair would rule me out of order if I were to refer to the recent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on the subject of English devolution. but I believe that there is every justification for the view that the kind of powers envisaged in the clause are more sensibly held in the hands of district councils than of county councils. The New Forest district council, in my constituency, is perhaps some way ahead of the thinking of many other local authorities on this matter. Two years ago, it passed a resolution that called, effectively, for English devolution. It proposed the devolution from this place of powers to elected regional councils, in effect the abolition of county councils and devolution down to district councils of many matters among which, I am sure, traffic management and off-street parking would be included.
The Secretary of State referred to the power of local people to turn out a local authority that introduces unpopular schemes of traffic management. The bus lanes in Southampton were not very popular and the swing against the Labour Party in the last local elections in Southampton was, by general consent, so large as to require an explanation and the traffic management schemes introduced by the former Labour council were not irrelevant.
If the House is seriously interested in looking at the overall question of traffic management, doing it in this piecemeal fashion is unsatisfactory. Many of my constituents feel that traffic management schemes and parking arrangements should be organised so that facilities are made available for local people rather than for people coming in from outside, though that may be easier to say than to administer.
The Lymington harbour commissioners have managed to reserve moorings in the Lymington river for people who live within six miles of Lymington. Many of my constituents would like to see places in the public car parks run by the district councils reserved for people living in or near the areas concerned, but such powers are not inherent in the Bill.
Finally, dare I mention the subject of caravans about which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment? Problems are caused by these vehicles and certain popular areas have particular problems. In some of the scenic tourist areas of this country, there may be a case for restricting the entry of certain vehicles into certain places at certain times unless booked and reserved accommodation is available.
All this is very much wider than anything proposed in the Bill. I suspect the motives of the Government in seeking to reinsert this clause in the Bill, and I have no hesitation in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) does worse when he writes his speeches than when he speaks off the cuff. He sought to attribute to me malice and various ill motives, but he should have read all of what I said in the speech about which he complained. I said:
I say merely that I should not be surprised to see that National Car Parks contributes to Conservative Party funds."—[Official Report. 17th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 497.]
Is it ill mannered of me to say that?
Why do I come to that conclusion? The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said a lot of harsh things about the Liberal Members and the Secretary of State and what he is seeking to do in this clause. The hon. Gentleman said that there could be no argument about this matter. Plainly there is an argument or we would not be having one. He resolutely refuses to see that there can be any case for regulations to help with the management of the problem in our towns and cities.
5.45 p.m.
My only criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that he is going to the wrong level. The people who own the car parks and best know the needs of an area are the district councils at the lower tier of management. My right hon. Friend said in reply to my intervention that the Government had sought to deal with the matter from a philosophical point of view in other legislation concerning these matters and had decided that the powers should be given to the county councils.
On Humberside we have a huge, semi-regional area, split by the Humber estuary. It may be that county councillors considering these matters may not have visited places such as Hull, Beverley, Brigg or Scunthorpe for a considerable time. I could not say when I was last in Beverley and county councillors on the south bank of the Humber have a considerable journey to get to some other parts of the region. We would do better to allow the local authority at, say, Beverley to decide what to do with its car parks rather than hand over the decision to county councillors. In the same way, I do not suppose that those in Beverley or Bridlington will know the needs of Scunthorpe particularly well.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield waxed passionately on the main argument of whether there is a need for this provision. There is a philosophical divide between us. The Opposition say that nothing should stand in the way of the entrepreneur and that if he provides the car park he should decide what hours it should be open and so on because he has come into the free market economy and decided a rate for the job that the market will bear.
I understand that argument, but there is a converse argument. I refer again to what the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field said about there being no argument in this matter. Of course there is an argument. For example, we have free car parking in Scunthorpe. No entrepreneur comes into Scunthorpe to provide car parks because all the parks in the town are free. I am not saying that that is necessarily the right approach. At present we have sufficient space, but the commercial functions of the town ate to be extended and perhaps there will be a shortage of space at some time. A more sensible approach at that time might be to say that we want people to come in to use the shops and offices and to use the car parks on a short-term rather than a long-term basis.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) gave the game away when he said that in seaside towns, where there are shortages of parking places, people might start parking caravans in areas where they are not wanted. The hon. Gentleman seems to support the

case that is being made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I was at Bristol for some time and there was a large departmental store that besides encompassing departments dealing with shoes, handbags, linen and other goods had two or three floors devoted to car parking. At the end of the financial year the store found that the car park had made the greatest profit.
Let us pursue the argument. Let us act on the basis of the free market economy. Let us do away with the haberdashery department, the shoe department and everything else and turn the building into a complete car park. If we did that, we should make more profit. What would happen? The reason for people going into the centre of Bristol would diminish until the centre was devoted entirely to car parking and there would be no reason for people to go to the centre.
I am arguing in stark terms that when we consider traffic management in any area there is a variety of circumstances to bear in mind. It may be that there is a wish to attract the long-term parker. It may be that the short-term parker is wanted, bearing in mind the services that have been provided in the area.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington observed that there may be parking provisions in seaside towns and that motorists may want to park in the centre of the shopping district, or they may want to bring in their caravans as well when there is provision elsewhere.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has twice suggested that I said something that in fact I never said. I was not talking about bringing caravans into seaside areas but general traffic management. I merely mentioned caravans en passant not necessarily in seaside areas but in areas of outstanding natural beauty where there are no powers for local authorities or the Forestry Commission, for example, to control their entry in certain areas at certain times of the year. If we are to have a thorough review of traffic management, there are far more important problems to discuss than the particular one that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Ellis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's correction. He is concerned about areas of outstanding natural beauty. I do not think that he detracts from my


argument. I misunderstood him, but I can understand his concern. I know that in many seaside towns there are many caravans. I shall give the hon. Gentleman his argument if he gives me mine. It may be the policy of the local council not to have caravans in certain areas. That is an additional reason that adds to the argument. It seems that the hon. Gentleman did not include it and that I misunderstood him. However, he argued on the basis of scenic beauty and he reinforces my argument.
The Opposition have it entirely wrong. Mention has been made of the late Ernest Marples. It is true that ever since the war Ministers of Transport, whether Conservative or Labour, have been involved in controversy. We all remember the slogan "Marples must go". There was a similar campaign involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she was transport Minister.
The attitude of many when they returned from the war was that they had been fighting for the freedom to live their lives as they thought fit. They demanded a better standard of living so that they could own a car. They considered that part of the freedom for which they had been fighting was the right to take their car into city centres and to park it where they wished.
It took a long time for it to be accepted that if all motorists took their cars into our main cities or small towns and no parking provision was made they would merely sit in enormous traffic jams. At that stage public opinion caught up with what successive Ministers of Transport had been trying to do.
Whenever any restriction was introduced, whether it be for off-street car parking or anything else, there was always an enormous amount of fuss and uproar. My right hon. Friend has been painted as a villian but he has said that if the local people, who know something of the problems, wish to use their powers, they are powers that he thinks it right they should have. It may be that many local authorities will not need to use the powers now, but I have the feeling that they will need to do so in future.
My only reservation is that the powers are vested in the county councils and not in the lower tier of local government

where those who know their districts could best make their own decisions.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to get one or two things straight. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), made great play of the voting of the Liberal peers in another place. I have in front of me the speech of Viscount Simon, which makes it clear why the Liberal Lords voted as they did. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read the debate, he will see that one reason that caused them to vote as they did was that no provision had been made for the disabled. Their other complaint concerned appeals against decisions. Lord Simon said that the Liberal peers would vote against clause 9 in the hope that those matters would be put right and that a new clause would be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman has done just that by introducing the amendments.
The clause is a minimum measure when we consider what is needed to deal with the problems of inner urban traffic. In London we had the Labour-controlled GLC removing parking meters. Immediately the Labour Party was out of office, the Tory-controlled GLC started to replace the meters. Heaven knows what the cost has been to the ratepayers and taxpayers, but it must have been hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The lady chairman of the Tory GLC transport committee made the ridiculous statement that she would speed up London buses by removing more and more conductors and providing more and more one-man buses. Any hon. Member who travels on buses will know that the last thing anybody wants to do is to get on a double-decker bus in London which has the driver taking the fares and no conductor. That is a recipe for making the slowest progress possible. At times it can take half an hour in the morning to get from Millbank to Piccadilly Circus. Day in and day out, there are traffic jams along the Embankment. On a Friday evening it takes over an hour to get to Putney. In those circumstances, surely hon. Members on both sides of the House must realise that something has to be done.
London has the worst traffic record of any city in the western world. That was commented upon recently. We have before us a minor measure to deal with


a situation which has to be tackled far more seriously. The aim is to provide further means of regulating traffic in urban areas. It does not seek to do very much. I cannot understand why such a fuss is being made. I should like to see the Secretary of State going much further. We cannot continue to put up with the present situation.

Mr. Norman Fowler: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for believing that the controls that we are discussing will do any good whatsoever? If he has come to the conclusion that they will not do any good—presumably that is what he is saying—why does he intend to vote for them?

Mr. Ross: I am not saying that. I am trying to point out that on the ground of political expediency the two main parties have not attempted seriously to tackle the problems over the past 20 years. Both parties are frightened to death of upsetting motorists, and I happen to be a motorist. The parties do not take the necessary steps to deal with inner urban traffic problems. However, at long last it appears that the general public are willing to use public transport again. It is clear that they are going back on to the railways. There has been increasing use of trains in recent months.
To do nothing to tackle the problem seems to me to abrogate the responsibility. That is why I cannot go along with the Opposition, who wish to kick out a minor measure. It is a democratic measure because it will be left to the local authorities to decide whether they wish to take up the powers, and I am a believer in local democracy.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I do not understand what the Opposition find frightening in this proposal. It seems innocuous enough. Powers are to be devolved to the county councils. If anything could emasculate the car parking regulation system, it is to give those powers to the shire counties. They will do practically nothing. They are already road oriented and are likely to remain so for many years.
The position as regards the metropolitan areas will be different. But, again,

I do not know what the Opposition are frightened about. They speak with great confidence about the transport chairmen in London and Nottingham being thrown out at local elections because of their traffic management policies. Nevertheless, they still think that there is danger. Apparently they cannot trust county councillors, whether Conservative or Labour.
It seems sensible and logical that metropolitan areas, which have power to control traffic and to provide public transport with subsidies, should have these car parking powers as well. It seems more democratic that those who elect local councillors should be able to express their views through those councillors. I am confident that councillors in cities will be responsive to the demands of the inhabitants that something should be done to reduce the terrible congestion that takes place in cities.
Something was said about a brave new world and Labour wanting to go into it. It would seem that the Opposition do not want that. That is the direction in which most of the world has moved. Throughout the world, traffic regulation powers are in the hands of local authorities. They are much greater powers than we are giving in the Bill.
Los Angeles and Tokyo—fast-flying cities—are able to stop traffic going into the cities if they so wish. Tokyo has regulations to stop all cars going into the city. The same applies to Los Angeles. There are other cities in a similar position. For example, the laws on pollution in some countries are very stringent. Why are we so backward? It seems that the Opposition are bent on picking out the nits, especially with the approach of a General Election.
There is nothing revolutionary in this proposal. It is perfectly logical. However, I wish that the district councils were to be responsible. Indeed, as has been said, it seems ridiculous that, in the county of Avon, Bristol rather than the rural areas should have this power. It is probably the worst example in the country. But there are many similar examples of the powers of the county council overriding the expert local knowledge of the district councils.
It is a great pity that we use transport as a means of party conflict in this Chamber. The result is great human suffering. Indeed, there is greater loss of life because of it. Most people are killed on the roads in urban areas, not on the motorways. The situation is so bad that we need to increase the powers where they will be more effective. It is a great pity that we cannot be non-partisan on this matter. This problem cries out for a solution. The Government are providing part of the solution but no more, and certainly it is not very revolutionary.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) said about a certain amount of non-partisanship in transport matters. I believe that we have established a reasonable rapport on transport matters. The hon. Gentleman might agree that most hon. Members—even the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)—are on speaking terms with the Opposition. Indeed, we hear a lot from the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, but that does not prevent this great non-partisan feeling. This is not a question of trying to be non-partisan all the time. We disagree with this proposal.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) talked about being in fear of the motorist. However, many motorists have a case to be put. When the Government are being unfair to those motorists, somebody should criticise the Government for being unfair.
As the Secretary of State said, we have been round this course on a number of occasions. We all have sympathy with that view. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and others of my hon. Friends have put the main points of the argument. Therefore, I shall come straight to what I believe to be the most important point in these discussions. This point, which was made by the Secretary of State, mirrors our constructive opposition. The result of our vigorous opposition to the clause is plain to see. The Secretary of State said—and the point should be underlined—that this power should be used only for relief of congestion in urban areas and that the fear of the power being used in unnecessary places all over the country was clearly removed. Indeed. I understand

that the Department will issue guidance to authorities on this matter.
Again, in response to another concern, the Secretary of State said that he would consider intervention if there were any abuse. That is the clear construction that we put on his words. If the clause becomes part of the Bill—this is a tribute to the Opposition as much as to the wisdom of the Secretary of State in taking note of what we have said—it will apply to our major metropolitan and urban areas.

Mr. Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that it is appropriate to have such a power in congested inner urban areas, why does he rule out holiday areas where there is congestion at certain times of the year and where the problem may be just as acute?

Mr. Temple-Morris: I do not accept anything. Indeed, that was not the purport of what I was saying. I was not accepting that this should go anywhere. My earlier remarks, which admittedly were rather speedily made, should have left no one in any doubt about that. In the spirit of non-partisanship which has been mentioned, at least wholehearted opposition results in some give. We know where we are. I should not be in favour of this proposal at all. Indeed, I made that clear in some detail on Report.
The importance of the inquiry procedure is mirrored by what happened in London. Between 4,000 and 5,000 representations were made against the London scheme by the then Labour-controlled GLC. The result of those representations was absolutely nil. There was no inquiry, let alone intervention by the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is important that he should now say that he will consider intervention if there is any abuse.
Finally, I offer an olive branch, if possible, or a reaching across in the generous spirit that we have on transport matters in the direction of none other than the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. We have heard a lot from him and have disagreed with him. As this Session and Parliament fade away, however, and as the voices which are heard—not least the hon. Member's—on transport matters go elsewhere into the country, his words about the district councils having much greater voice and assuming these powers are words with which many hon.


Members on both sides of the House can agree.
I hope that the hon. Member for Preston, North will approve of the way that I end my speech. I am a friend of local government reorganisation, in particular the 1972 provisions. This matter has to be looked at, and who better to advocate it than an honorary vice-president of the Association of District Councils, otherwise known as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall detain the House only briefly. I am suspicious when I hear that the Secretary of State wants to give powers to authorities whether they intend to use them or not. Generally, when Ministers give powers they look towards a day when they will be used. Therefore, if this power is given, a measure of control is provided which does not exist at present. I do not wish to see that power given, for the simple reason that it might be used.
My county council has not been writing letters to me in the past month begging me to support the Secretary of State in clause 9, which gives the powers to regulate car parks. It has not said that it needs this power to control the traffic in Reading or Newbury. The county council seems satisfied with the powers that it possesses.
How many county councils have asked the Secretary of State for these powers which he now so generously offers to them? Have a majority of county councils asked for the powers? Will he give a figure? Is what he is proposing tonight the first part of a package which will ultimately include privately owned car parks? That is the doubt that lies in the minds of many of my hon. Friends. They feel that this is the first prong of a fork which ultimately will give authorities the power to limit the ability of motorists to drive their cars where they choose.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) talked about parking meters and the GLC. He explained how, when Labour was in control, parking meters were taken away and how now the Conservatives are in control and parking meters are coming back. Parking meters provide parking places for cars. If they

are there, cars can come in to the city. If they are not, cars cannot come in. An authority can take to itself the ability to limit the freedom of people who, having bought their cars with the intention of using them, having paid all the required taxes, may not use their vehicles because a local authority decides that they shall not do so.
Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, he knows that by these regulations that he has fought so hard to retain he intends to give a power that will limit the right of individuals to use their cars. Since I do not believe that those regulations are required and I wish to retain as much freedom for the individual as possible, I do not support the Secretary of State but I support the Lords.

Mr. Moate: I agreed with the Secretary of State in only one of his remarks. He said that these were old and familiar arguments. I agree. The House has gone over this ground on many occasions recently. However, that does not make the argument less effective.
I am surprised by the continuing obstinacy of the Secretary of State in persisting with a proposal which is unwanted by anybody except members of the Labour Party. Apparently it is also now wanted by the Liberal Party. We have heard a clear statement from a spokesman of the Liberal Party that the Liberals are in favour of the proposition. However, they criticise it because it does not go far enough. The spokesman, by implication, criticised the Liberal transport spokesman for not having had the percipience of the Liberals in the House of Lords who voted against the proposal.
6.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) explained that by saying that the Liberals voted against it in the Lords on two grounds—that there was no appeals procedure and that it did not make proper provision for the disabled. There is still no appeals procedure. The Government have not moved an amendment to provide that procedure, and yet the hon. Member for Isle of Wight still feels able to support the proposition.
The Secretary of State has not been obstinate about the disabled. We welcome his amendment which allows submissions to be made on behalf of the


disabled in areas where it is proposed to license privately operated public car parks. Without a mandatory appeals procedure, however, that is not satisfactory. If he wishes, the Secretary of State need not have an appeals procedure, even if organisations for the disabled feel that alternative and convenient facilities are not available. The Government's proposal for the disabled is not as satisfactory as it might seem.
At the last minute there is an amendment which seems to be welcomed, but it seems to apply to all parts of the country except Greater London. I am sure that the House does not wish me to present a Committee argument about clause 9. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will say whether I am correct to say that representations can be made on behalf of the disabled anywhere in the United Kingdom except Greater London. That is the way in which the Bill appears to have been drafted. If I am right, how does the Secretary of State propose to deal with it? It is unacceptable that a Bill should go on to the statute book in that form.
I agree with the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). This is an unwanted power. It limits the freedom of the consumer to choose his mode of transport. It is a Socialist proposal. Those who say that we should have a non-partisan agreement on these matters should be clear that that is a Socialist proposal. For that reason, we shall vote against it.
The power exists in only one area—the Greater London area. Only the Socialist-controlled GLC chose to exercise the power. Thank heavens, as soon as there was a change of control the Conservatives decided to abandon the proposals. No other local authority is clamouring for this power. A Socialist Government intend to introduce it so that—heaven forbid—if Labour controls London again it will be used. It is a Socialist measure which will be waiting for Socialist administrations to place more controls on motorists.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: If it is a Socialist proposal, it is one that has been adopted by many Conservative Governments throughout the world. Is it not time that the British Tories caught up?

Mr. Moate: We are concerned about the way in which we run our affairs in this country. We are faced with a Socialist measure which will place more controls on the motorist. The proposal is superfluous. It could be damaging and will contribute nothing to traffic management schemes, about which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight spoke.
Supporters of the proposition have said that we have made strides forward in traffic management schemes in the last two decades. Much has been achieved without this type of power. Massive planning powers are available to local authorities. The motorists of this country would be filled with incredulity at the proposition that there are not enough powers already to achieve the results that we all want to achieve in terms of traffic management.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member says that Socialists are seeking to curb the freedom of the motorist. Why does he not use the same argument on planning matters? Local authorities decide that certain areas shall be used for car parks or for shopping. The hon. Member appears to be prepared to accept Socialism in that area but not in this.

Mr. Moate: Let me make the point briefly. I suspect that the House wishes to conic to a decision on this matter fairly soon, so I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way again. The point I am making is simply that there is a massive panoply of powers that already exist and are available to local authorities. This further power is not needed. All we are providing is yet another weapon in the Socialist armoury for more controls in the future to deprive the transport user, the consumer, of his freedom to choose the most efficient mode of transport.
Let us very quickly look at the book. We do not have to gaze into the crystal Let us see how the GLC exercised its powers and what it would have done if it had had time to implement these proposals. When Labour was in control, pursuing a quite blatantly anti-motorist policy, what did the GLC do? The GLC sought to remove many of the very parking meters that the Secretary of State was saying that he helped to introduce 20 years ago. It took about 4,000 parking meters. It closed some of the car


parks so that motorists could not get into them before 11 o'clock in the mornine.
It was a deliberate policy to try to reduce the depedence of the motorist on his car and to shift people over to public transport. It was a quite clear policy of restricting the motorist. It was a blatant anti-motorist policy, although the Secretary of State may choose to deny this.
The GLC achieved those cuts in the freedom of the motorist with its previous powers. It did not have time to implement its powers of control as defined in the clause. How much more power would the GLC exercise if it went on to the further stage, which the Secretary of State supports—and the Liberal Party, apparently—of control of private nonresidential parking, which includes all the office blocks as well?
This is the thin edge of the wedge. There is no doubt that if we proceed with this proposal the Labour Party, in its manifesto—one hopes that it will be many years before it has a chance to implement it—would seek to take it a further step forward. The Secretary of State made it clear that the only reason why he has not got even more extreme proposals this Session is that it was a crowded Session. He has explained his commitment—he made it absolutely clear—to the introduction of further restrictions on car parking and on the motorist.
I conclude by simply saying that there is no inquiry procedure either for discruntled motorists or for the person who has provided car parks under existing planning rules. Basically we have an undemocratic system in which the Secretary of State can impose his will. All I can say further on that score is that when the GLC introduced its proposals there were 4.600 complainants against them. Yet the Secretary of State did not feel it right to have an appeal. Frankly, if 4,600 people complain and he still does not feel that an appeal is justified, the people, and motorists in particular, cannot look to him for any defence of their interests.
I suspect that that is one of the reasons why this proposal is so widely opposed. It is opposed by the Automobile Association and by the Royal

Automobile Club. It is now unwanted by the GLC. The British Road Federation and others have all opposed it. The House of Lords has now opposed it and has given us this opportunity to reject it once and for all. I forgot the Liberal Party. The Liberals are for it and against it, so we do not know exaclty where they stand. But let this House make clear where it stands. Let us reject this proposal and let us agree with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. William Rodgers: By leave of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply.
On the specific point about which the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked me. as to how the amendment affected London, we did not think it right to attempt to amend the 1969 Act in this respect. But, of course, I have discretion to call in a scheme, and certainly I would propose to act in London in the spirit of the amendment, because I agree entirely that the amendment with regard to the disabled is an important one. I pay tribute to all those who played some part in bringing it forward. Assuming always that the House intends to pass that amendment this evening, certainly it would condition the way in which I acted. I shall act in the spirit of it—I give that undertaking to the House—in dealing with further applications under the 1969 Act as it affects London.

Mr. Norman Fowler: It is a very curious anomaly that we now have a law which applies—I accept what the Secretary of State is saying—everywhere outside London but, because of administrative difficulties, apparently, we are not able to apply it to London. That is unsatisfactory and it deserves a little more explanation than the Secretary of State is giving.

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman thought about what he was seeking to do this evening, he would find that he is seeking to perpetuate an anomaly—that we have one law affecting parking in London and we do not have such a law affecting other harts of the country. He is seeking to maintain that position. whereas I am seeking in the Bill to remedy it. It is very perverse of the hon Member to argue precisely the contrary and to say that in this case we should have conformity in London with the


counties, although he does not want to have conformity and the same opportunities for the counties as London. If the hon. Member would like to think about it for a little while, perhaps he will send me a note later in the evening to confirm that I am right.
I have made the undertaking plain to the House. I do not think that the hon. Member for Faversham should be too ungenerous, because that is rather out of keeping with his character as I understand it. I have said that in seeking to make sure that the provisions of the 1969 Act as they affect London are taken proper care of, I shall act in the spirit of the amendment. However, it would not be right or practical, in a Bill of this kind, to introduce an amendment related to London itself.
I was tempted by many of the points made to cover ground with which we were familiar, but I think everyone has agreed that we have travelled this road before and we have stopped in this place on many occasions. I do not honestly believe that most of the arguments were new. There is an honest difference of opinion. I should like to believe that we could approach these matters in a non-partisan spirit, because I think that ideology which is suitable for some circumstances is very unrelated to problems of traffic manage

ment. The more we seek to bring partisanship into matters of this kind, the more in the long run we shall bring the House into disrepute.

There are matters of political philosophy and ideology which we should dispute, but not when it comes to deciding which parking shall be regulated and which parking shall not be regulated. This is a matter of judgment. I am prepared to say that circumstances may show that local authorities do not wish to exercise the powers which I hope the House will give them tonight. That is a matter of their judgment, and they are entitled to it. The Opposition are entitled to their judgment about when such powers should be exercised.

However, I believe that this is a constructive measure, essential to traffic management in urban areas and helpful both to those who use a private car and to those who use public transport, and to the very many people, among whom I include myself, who use both a private car and public transport from time to time as appropriate.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 109.

Division No. 321]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Molloy, William


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Morton, George


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
John, Brynmor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rodgers, Gaorge (Chorley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamond, James
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, John
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litterick, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Loyden, Eddie
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Luard, Evan
Sever, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Steel, Rt Hon David


English, Michael
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tomlinson, John




Wainwright, Edwin (Deanne V)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woof, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
William, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Ward, Michael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkinson, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Ma. Jim Marshall and


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Tod Graham.


Whitehead, Phillip
Wise, Mrs Audrey



NOES


Alison, Michael
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Percival, Ian


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bell, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raison, Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes James, R.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
James, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bottomley, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brittan, Leon
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
MacCormick, lain
Silvester, Fred


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Durant, Tony
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Viggers, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Nelson, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Neubert, Michael
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Normanton, Tom



Gray, Hamish
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Jim Lester.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made to the words so restored to the Bill: in page 10, line 34, at end insert—

(3A) Any such Order shall also require councils—


(a) to consult organisations representative of the disabled before deciding to propose the designation of a controlled area under the Order; and
(b) if representations are received from such organisations about the proposal, to send to the Secretary of State (together with copies of representations received from other organisations consulted) a statement of how parking requirements of the disabled arising from implementation of the proposal are met by existing facilities or, if in the opinion of the council they are not already so met, how it is intended to meet them.'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:


1. Finance Act 1978
2. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1978
3. Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
4. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978
5. Employment (Continental Shelf) Act 1978
6. Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
7. Home Insulation Act 1978
8. Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978
9. Inner Urban Areas Act 1978
10. Scotland Act 1978
11. Wales Act 1978
12. Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978
13. Dividends Act 1978
14. Lonon Transport Act 1978
15. Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Act 1978
16. Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Act 1978

TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

New Clause C

NATIONAL POLICY FOR INLAND WATERWAY TRANSPORT

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 11, line 16. at end insert new clause C—
("C. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to promote a national policy for the use of inland waterways for commercial transport.")—Read a Second time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we are to take the following:
The amendment thereto in the names of the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), at end add:
'and to lay a report on such policy before both Houses of Parliament on or before 1st January 1980.'

Lords amendment: No. 28: the titles in line ', after ("parking") insert:
(",and about inland waterway transport")

Hon., Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Onslow: Unaccustomed as I am to such an enthusiastic reception, I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House if I were simply to move my amendment to the Lords amendment and then seek leave to speak to the amendment in the course of a wider debate. If that is in order, I am sure that it would be for the convenience of the House that we should hear from the two Front Benches, and then I can make the remarks that I wish to make in the light of what they have had to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the best way, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do that, is for him to move his amendment formally now.

Mr. Onslow: That is what I was hoping to do. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment proposed to Lords amend-no. 11: at end add:

and to lay a report on such policy before both Houses of Parliament on or before 1st January 1980.'—[Mr. Onslow.]

Mr. Marks: I am surprised that an hon. Member who has tabled an amendment to an amendment is able to move it formally and not state his reasons for moving the amendment, in the hope that perhaps it will go through "on the nod". This is a completely new procedure to me.
I wish to speak to the Lords amendment. It falls to me, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to speak, since I am advised that the main duty embodied in the amendment would be on the Secretary of State for the Environment. This is, of course because inland waterways are among the many responsibilities of the DOE. Also, the House will recall the Government's recent response to the report on the British Waterways Board by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. In this we reaffirmed our view that ministerial responsibility for the BWB, which owns or manages most of the inland waterways carrying, or capable of carrying, freight, should remain with DOE. That is the formal position. In practice, the DOE does, of course, cooperate closely with the Department of Transport on matters of mutual interest including freight transport on waterways.
6.45 p.m.
I think that the hon. Gentleman's amendment, like the substantive amendment, though well-intentioned, is misconceived and unlikely to assist the Government in their dealings with the British Waterways Board, which has statutory responsibility for traffic on the waterways.
Perhaps I may remind the House of what that responsibility involves. Section 10 of the Transport Act 1962 states:
It shall be the duty of the British Waterways Board … to provide to such extent as they may think expedient—

(a) services and facilities on the inland waterways owned or managed by them, and
(b) ports facilities of any harbour owned or managed by them,
and to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operations as respects the services and facilities provided by them.
The same section goes on to empower the Board to carry goods and passengers by inland waterway, to provide facilities for traffic and transport services by road


in connection with the carriage of goods by waterways, to operate harbours owned or managed by it, and so on.
I would particularly emphasise the importance of the words "as they"—that is the Board—"may think expedient" in section 2 of the Act. The tenor of the passage is clearly to place on the British Waterways Board the responsibility for evolving a policy for the waterways, including especially the commercial waterways. Of course, this must be within the framework of Government policy as a whole.
The Government's national policy for freight transport was set out as part of the White Paper on transport policy of June 1977, and we have set out a national policy for the waterways in our White Paper on the water industry of July 1977. Not everyone may agree with that policy, but it was a proper function of the Government to consult on it and then set it out. The subsequent amendment which is before the House, in contrast, seeks to place a unique, specific, statutory duty on the Government in respect of one mode and one function of transport, and appears to ignore the statutory role and responsibility of the British Waterways Board and even to reflect adversely on it. The fact that there is no national system of inland waterways which is usable for commercial transport, and that inland waterways handle only 0.1 per cent. of freight movement emphasises the inappropriateness of the substantive amendment.
It is not a proper duty for my Secretary of State to formulate a national policy for only one use of inland waterways, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would regard it as quite as objectionable to be required to promote a separate national policy for road, freight, rail freight, road passengers, rail passengers and so on.
Overall transport policy as set out in the transport policy White Paper is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. For my part, I am bound to point out that my Department's White Paper of July 1977 proposed the setting up of a national inland navigation authority, in conjunction with the amalgamation of the British Waterways Board with the water industry, and the introduction of legislation as soon as opportunity permitted.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I intervene at this stage in order perhaps to save time later. Is not my hon. Friend confusing two distinct matters—the statutory responsibility of the British Waterways Board in its present and possible future manifestation, which is the responsibility of his Department, and transport on water in general, which goes well beyond, and in many cases considerably beyond, the responsibilities of that particular publicly owned authority? If he agrees with that, does he not agree that perhaps the amendment is not so much of the ball as he suggests?

Mr. Marks: I am coming to that, and I shall say what my eventual conclusion on the matter will be. The inland waterways which are owned by the BWB are not the sole source of inland water transport in this country: indeed, they are only a very small part of it.
The preparation of that legislation would involve further extensive consultation which will cover the commercial activities of the waterways and, in particular, whether the role of inland waterways for freight should be hived off from the other and increasingly important recreational and amenity aspects. In the Government's view, it would be premature to attempt to deal in a piecemeal fashion with the important issues involved hereby reallocating, on the basis of an amendment from another place, the responsibility for the development of one particular use of our waterways, whatever it might be.
The waterways have a role in freight, in land drainage and in water supply. They are far more important for amenity and recreation—new uses which are already predominant on the vast majority of our waterways and are steadily increasing in importance. All these uses ought to be considered as the Government have proposed in the context of a detailed and comprehensive review with appropriate supporting studies.
Another important point which makes the main amendment unsatisfactory is that there is a lack of universally accepted definition of the term "inland waterways". I think that it would be misleading to understand by that phrase everything from the estuarial reaches of large rivers such as the Thames and the Mersey —most of which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State for Transport—through the inland waterways leading, say, to the Humber, which account for 80 per cent. of commercial transport on inland waterways as normally understood, to the waterways controlled by regional water authorities or other navigation authorities and the narrow canals of the British Waterways Board, which could be made suitable for commercial traffic only by investment on a scale which no Government in recent years have thought to be called for.
Our approach to the waterways of the British Waterways Board at the level of national policy is one which takes account of the canals' traditional role in freight carrying, water supply and land drainage and their role in amenity and recreation. As for their commercial use, we have recognised that water traffic is an efficient user of energy for freight movement, although the facts constrain us to say that the scope for transfer of freight to the waterways is limited.
But we have acknowledged that inland waterways remain useful on a local scale and we have said that the Government will examine proposals for investment on their merits. The Government's faith in the future of the waterways system is indicated by the fact that we have allocated £5 million in the current year 1978–79 and earmarked a similar amount for 1979–80 foe urgent arrears of maintenance with implications for public safety.
We have carefully considered revised proposals for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. On this we have made clear that, particularly in view of local support—including financial support —we are by no means unsympathetic to an important local scheme of this kind, with its various potentials, although there have been matters of policy and further information which the Departments of Transport and the Environment are, with the Treasury, necessarily having to probe.
This particular case is of crucial importance for the future of the commercial waterways. Indeed, I think it is generally recognised that the decision on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation scheme and its outcome if it is approved will be of great significance in determining whether there is a future for commercial transport on the waterways of the British Waterways Board.
For this reason, and for the other reasons which I have given, the Government have serious reservations, as I have said, about the Lords amendment, and the further amendment to it tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), would add considerably to our difficulty in accepting it. We think that it would be undesirable to attempt to frame a policy for the commercial waterways of the British Waterways Board in isolation from the other important aspects of the waterways network which call for consideration as proposed in the White Paper. We therefore consider that the setting of a date for that purpose would be inappropriate.
However, despite the reservations which I have expressed, the Government are prepared not to offer any objection to the inclusion of the main Lords amendment to the Bill in order to show that we share the deep interest which the House has in the realistic development of inland waterways—and, if I may say so, in the interests of parliamentary progress. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will be prepared to accept my assurance that we shall certainly be considering the whole question in the wider context of the legislation needed to implement the 1977 waterways White Paper proposals, and I trust that they will not press their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should make clear beyond peradventure the way in which we are proceeding in this matter. We are discussing a group of amendments which comprises Lords amendment no. 11, the amendment thereto in the name of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Lords amendment no. 28. They will be debated as a group and then at the appropriate time the Question will he put, "That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made "When that has been dealt with, we shall come to the Question" That this House doth agree"—or disagree, as the ease may be—"with the Lords in the said amendment", namely, amendment no. 11, as amended or not, again as the case may be.
I thought that I had better give that full explanation so that the House will understand the position.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I had hoped that, in accepting the Lords amendment, the Government would show a little more encouragement and enthusiasm for our canal system and, in particular, for the British Waterways Board. Moreover, in view of the importance of this industry, I think that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment might have found it in his heart to delay his journey to Canada for what I do not feel is the most important of purposes and find time to come here to explain to the House of Commons why he is so determined that the British Waterways Board should cease to exist and explain at the same time his attitude to the report of the Select Committee on the British Waterways Board, which produced no fewer than seven separate recommendations which, if embodied within it, would have made the speech from the Dispatch Box more effective than the one we have heard.
However, even if we have not heard from the Minister of State, I mean no disrespect to the Under-Secretary of State when I say that what he told us was very much what the Minister of State told the Select Committee. The House will perhaps understand, therefore, if I refer to the Select Committee's report on the British Waterways Board, since I was a member of Sub-Committee A which did much of the work to produce that report.
It may be remembered that the report was published in February of this year. I think that all of us who took part in the inquiry into the British Waterways Board felt that we were helping to clarify some of the present doubt and confusion about how our inland waterways and canals should be properly developed. In the words of the amendment, we were helping
to promote a national policy for the use of inland waterways".
To that extent, the seven recommendations in our report are, in our view, constructive and will be helpful as we look to the future of our canals.
Perhaps I should declare yet another interest, for it is not only the Select Committee which has brought me in touch with our canals. I am fortunate enough to have the Kennet and Avon canal flowing through the length of my constituency, and were I to try to ignore its existence my amenity society, perhaps the most

enthusiastic in west Berkshire, would rapidly remind me of all that it has achieved and of how much it has enhanced the countryside in west Berkshire.
I look forward, as does that amenity society, to the day when it will have completed its work and it will be possible to get in a boat at Reading and sail via the canal through Newbury, Hungerford, Devizes and Bath to Bristol, for then we shall once again see that canal as it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when it was one of the commercial waterways of Britain. The canal is now one of our amenities. It is a place for pleasure boating and fishing, for horse-drawn barge trips and for what we call in my constituency the "crafty craft" race.
Our canal lost its commercial business to the railways, as they have lost so much of theirs to road transport. But I think that the Under-Secretary is wrong when he implies that canals today exist only for amenity and pleasure. That may be true of 80 per cent. of the network, but he must be aware that there is about 1,000 miles of commercial waterway in our country—quite enough track, I suggest, on which to base a national policy for the use of inland waterways.
7.0 p.m.
Although the Minister suggested that the British Waterways Board had the majority under its control, again he is wrong. It has control only of 350 miles. Six hundred miles are under the control of what might be described as non-nationalised institutions.
Taken together, the commercial waterways carry a quarter of the total tonnage of freight carried by rail but on only one-twelfth of the track, and they are in everyday use. The latest figures, which I received only this afternoon, show that the amount of freight being carried has risen in 1978 compared with 1976 by no less than 20 per cent. In other words, the commercial waterways are playing not only a useful but an increasing role. To dismiss them lightly as a side issue in the whole question of the future use of our canals seems to me to miss the point and to give little credit, if any credit at all, to the board. It has played a magnificent role in trying to make them effective.
The board has control of not only 350 miles of commercial waterways but of the Sharpness Dock, which I saw with the


Select Committee, and extensive warehousing facilities throughout the country. With that background and the background of the other docks that it owns, we should look at the amendment in terms of what the Government have achieved and, more important, whether we have given the board adequate finance to enable it to carry out its specific duties, not those laid down in the 1962 Act, to which the Minister referred, but those in the Transport Act 1968, which gave it the following duties:


"(a) to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and
(b) to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft".
Clearly, if the board cannot maintain the waterways, no amount of talk about the future of our canals will have much meaning or substance.
Having presented those duties, we have, as is alas too often the case with Parliament, denied the board the finance it needs to be able to carry out those duties and thus to make the best use of our canals. Indeed, the board told the Select Committee just that. It said that the finance sought by the board to fulfil the responsibilities placed on it by the 1968 Act had been constantly denied. That is a point to which I wish to return, because it is the one that the Government must answer if they are to prove to the House that they are serious in their intentions for the future of our canals.
Having made this point about the lack of finance, I should like to point out that the board has been financed by grants in aid stretching from £l½ million in 1968 to the current figure of £12 million, adding up to a total of about £30 million. That may sound a large sum, but, as the Minister of State has described the system as antiquated and with considerable maintenance implications, the Under-Secretary will recognise the truth of what I am about to say, that those grants in aid have enabled the board only to keep its head above water. They have never given it the finance with which to meet the costs of the maintenance without which our canal system cannot be developed.
As long ago as 1973 the board estimated that £21·8 million would be required to meet that maintenance backlog. As a result of the board's pleas—I

can think of no better word—to the Department of the Environment, the Department was finally persuaded to set up an inquiry into this need for expenditure, an inquiry which was headed by Peter Fraenkel and his associates. They started work in 1974 and produced their report in 1976. That is the moment when things started to go wrong, for in the setting up of the Fraenkel inquiry the board might have thought that all that it had said about the need for cash had at long last been recognised. It must have wondered why, after the report came into the Department's hands in 1976, the Government maintained an absolute silence about what the report said and the sums of money it claimed would be needed if the backlog of work on the canals was to be done.
That silence extended for 22 months until 1977, until a few days before the Minister of State came before the Select Committee to explain his attitude to the board. If I say that I see it as no coincidence that the report was published just before the Minister of State appeared before the Committee, I do so because I think that he probably had a guilty conscience about what was in the report and the fact that he had never let it see the light of day. Well he might have a guilty conscince, because Fraenkel said that £37·6 million should be spent on the canals. That was at 1974 prices. At today's prices it would be £60 million.
The position was worse than that, because there was a recommendation—that £3 million should be spent immediately on the purely public safety aspect of the canals. That was in the report, but the Government hid it from the House and the country for 22 months. Even if one is being charitable, it is a massive condemnation of ministerial unwillingness to heed the board's request for more financial support for the canals. It was a vindication of the board's concern and, I am sorry to say, an indictment of the willingness of those with responsibility at the Department of the Environment to take chances with the canal system, which, if it is not maintained, presents a high public safety risk.
I am sure that the report made unattractive reading to those in the Department, but its non-publication for nearly two years is almost unbelievable, just as it is almost unbelievable that since its


publication nothing has been done. The Under-Secretary said that £5 million had been made available for 1978–79, but he will know as well as I do that the board has not so far received one penny of that money to spend. The immediate maintenance work that must be done, as Fraenkel recognised, remains to be done. Weeks and months come and go, and nothing is done because of the technical arguments between the Department and the board. The object seems to be to deny the board the money it vitally needs.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman will agree, first, that the matter involves considerable expenditure and that the Opposition have been telling us not to go in for public expenditure of this kind or many other kinds. Secondly, with £5 million available, it is up to the board to decide its spending priorities. The Government have not learnt what they are.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I spoke to the board today. I was told that it has drawn up a works programme and staffing needs and that it put the document into the Department on 2nd February 1978. It is waiting for departmental clearance. So far, all that it can do is purchase the materials for the maintenance work, but. while the staffing problem remains, apparently the Department considers that that is reason enough to do nothing and to provide no cash.
I do not think that the Government want the British Waterways Board to be successful or to continue to do the job that it has been doing since 1968. That is why, I believe, the Fraenkel report was not published. I think that the Minister of State's mind has not been on the canals since 1976. He has been thinking of water and the water industry and of the canals only in terms of carrying water. Thus, in his view, any encouragement to the British Waterways Board was an encouragement that carried him in a direction exactly opposite to the one in which he wanted to go.
To some extent, the Minister of State has already shared his thoughts with us—first in the Green Paper "The Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales", published in March 1976, two months after Fraenkel was delivered to the Department; and more recently in the White Paper "The Water Industry

in England and Wales: the Next Steps", published in July 1977, four months before Fraenkel was published.
In the White Paper, the Government made clear that in their view the board should be merged in a national water authority:
The Government propose that this further work shall be undertaken on the basis that responsibility for the British Waterways Board will be transferred to the National Water Authority when it is set up, and that the water industry will be required to assume the major financial responsibility in view of the substantial benefits they derive from the waterways.
There is the Minister of State's policy for us all to read, and that policy and Fraenkel do not live side by side.
Thus, the board can be left to guess why the Government choose not to publish the report which vindicates it, while the Government and their officials go about their task of preparing plans to abolish the board, to centralise the water industry under a single, monolithic authority.
Yet when we challenged the Minister of State, when he came before the Select committee, over his non-action over Fraenkel was that the explanation he gave us? Not a bit of it. He defended his refusal to publish the report for nearly two years by casting aspersions on the professional ability of the British Waterways Board. I quote from his evidence on page 124. Answering a question about why the report had not been published, he said:
It was partly delayed because we took the view, rightly or wrongly—I did—that it was not much good publishing the Fraenkel Report, which showed that there was now a £60 million backlog of maintenance to be done, unless at the same time I could announce the Government's view on what we should do with it and also announce whether we were able to produce additional resources, which is exactly what happened. But in our discussions with the British Waterways Board I said, ' We have got £60 million of arrears estimated by the Fraenkel Committee. Can you kindly tell me what the priorities are? How much money needs to be spent this year because of the serious state of the canal system, how much money needs to be spent the following year and for the next five years and the next ten years? All I have is a report which says that there is £60 million worth of arrears. I have no hope of going to my colleagues in the Government and asking them for £60 million. I must therefore have the evidence to buttress my case, breaking that £60 million down into programmes.' I was astonished to be told that that information could not he provided and that it was


impossible for the Board to provide the information. They had not surveyed their system. They had not the staff to survey their system in sufficient detail to give me the necessary breakdown.
7.15 p.m.
If that statement is true, one must wonder why the Fraenkel Committee was ever set up. Was it the Department that was worried about these arrears? Did it hear no word from Sir Frank Price up to 1974, when he himself said that £21·8 million had to be spent? If it did hear word, how can the Minister of State possibly say that the BWB did not know what required to be done?
If the Minister really expects hon. Members to believe that statement, is he not saying in effect that he has no confidence in Sir Frank Price and the board? Surely it would be up to him, as the responsible Minister, to ask Sir Frank to leave the chairmanship. In fact, that has not happened. He just casts his aspersions, he undermines the confidence in the leadership of the board, but he leaves Sir Frank Price in the hopeless position of wondering what possible future the board and its staff and all the hard work that they have put in can have in the eyes of this Government.
As we know, the Minister of State has his own view of what the canal structure should be and that is within a national water authority. Sir Frank Price does not see eye to eye with him, and rather than let himself be won over by the experts the Minister chooses to browbeat the board by denying it the essential finance with which to do its job.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have been listening attentively and sympathetically to the hon. Member and much of what he says has a good deal of my support. However, when he talks about £60 million worth of work which needs to be done, he does not mention that previous Governments were responsible for neglecting our canals and waterways. I hope that this Government will do something about them urgently, but it is not just the present Government who are to blame.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is a fair point, which I concede immediately, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that I said that, from 1968, when these duties were laid down, the board has

been denied the finance that it required—and in that, of course, I embrace all the Governments who have had responsibility I do not want to shirk what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the Fraenkel report was started in 1974 and delivered to this Government in 1976. It was sat on for two years without a word being allowed to be published anywhere. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
We on the Select Committee looked at the circumstances as we found them. None of us had any preconceived ideas or any bias. We just went out to discover what the British Waterways Board was at and to learn something about the canals and inland waterways. We took evidence from many organisations and heard many witnesses, and at the end of the day, as so often happens with the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, we produced a unanimous report with seven recommendations.
As is usual, the Government have sent us their observations on our report. That some obdurate unwillingness to recognise that the board is the right authority to look after our canals comes through this document, page after page, but never more so than in the summary of the Government's answer to our recommendations. I shall quote just three of their observations.
On the question of finance, the Government do not accept
the Committee's recommendations insofar as they refer to the future financing of the canals; it considers it would be wrong to commit the provision of large-scale finance for a period of twelve to fifteen years on the basis of the Fraenkel Report;
On the question of the merger, the Government do not accept
the Committee's recommendation that the Government should immediately abandon its proposal to merge the British Waterways Board into a National Navigation Authority;
On the question of ministerial responsibility—on which I have not so far touched—the Government do not accept
the Committee's recommendation that Ministerial responsibility should be transferred from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Transport.
Although we are in a debate exclusively taken by the Department of Transport, we are having to go off at a tangent in order to allow a Minister from the Department of the Environment to


answer an amendment relating to inland commercial waterways.
No wonder Sir Frank Price, in his answer to the Government's observations, said:
I am sure that my board and for that matter the general public will be disturbed that the Government have turned down the findings of their own Consultants' Report on the state of the Waterways and what must be done to protect them.
Rather than read the whole statement, I will merely quote the last two points Sir Frank made. He said, first, that his board is disturbed that the Government were
continuing their policy which keeps the future of the waterways in doubt with all that that means for staff morale and recruitment, and investment by the private sector.
He concluded:
The Board no doubt will consider their position in the light of the Government's statement.
So there we have it. The Minister of State has set his heart against the future existence of the British Waterways Board and apparently, despite all the evidence he has received from so many expert bodies that he is making a mistake, he will not change. He appears to have little or no belief in the commercial transport possibilities of the canals, and, indeed, in his White Paper, he refers to waterways commercial transport only once in a one-word reference on page 13.
Thus, while our competitors in western Europe experiment with new approaches to commercial waterways transport, our Government let time run through their fingers as though every decision can be put off for as long as they choose. Our Select Committee recommendation that an investment should be made in the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation was simply noted amongst the Government's observations. Yet they could seek an EEC grant tomorrow, they have Parliament's consent, but for eight years they have dithered and dallied, and the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation remains untouched in terms of what its potential could be.

Mr. Marks: The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Can I presume that he is giving the Opposition's view that there should be massive spending on the waterways to

improve them for commercial reasons? About £60 million is involved. Is this something that the Conservative Party has advocated throughout these eight years that the hon. Gentleman has talked about?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Perhaps I can answer by saying that any Government who can leave that vital maintenance work still undone despite a report that they received in 1976, which said that £3 million should be spent immediately, are clearly prepared to take risks with public safety. I hope that the Conservative Party would never put itself in that position. I accept that the overall expenditure of £60 million is a huge sum of money, but we have to recognise that it is to be spent over a period of 10 to 15 years, and any of us who wants to see the commercial waterways developed as I believe they could be must decide how much we are prepared to spend.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, irrespective of the Fraenkel report, the opportunities for carrying out this work were there throughout the lifetime of the last Conservative Government, and that not only did they refuse to carry out the general work we are talking about but would not agree the money for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation improvement? Does he not accept that the one possibility we have of getting this development now is under the present Government?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am talking as a member of that Select Committee and of Sub-Committee A. I do not see present any other hon. Member who served with me on Sub-Committee A. I am talking about the recommendations that we reached and our belief that that work should go ahead. But perhaps I may press the point further.
The Under-Secretary of State, like the Minister of State, seems convinced that canal systems are a recreation and leisure area and not commercial at all. He will find in our report dozens of suggestions from interested organisations about possible commercial initiatives—for example, a proposed waterway linking the Severn and the Wash, and enlargement of the Trent and the Grand Union Canal in London to take bigger vessels.
The hon. Gentleman will know that other EEC countries are carrying out studies on how to maximise their waterways. He will be conscious of that remarkable piece of engineering the Rhine-Main-Danube link; he will know that there are many innovations in the type of craft being used—the barge-aboard catamaran, the development of dual-purpose sea and inland waterway craft, seagoing barges, barge-carrying ships, push-tow strings of barges. There are plenty of ideas and plenty of scope for increasing the use of inland waterways transport and the trade passing through our smaller ports. The hon. Gentleman will also know that many people see our rivers as providing uncluttered waterways to western Europe.
A Government who really intended to encourage the use of our canals as commercial waterways would have little difficulty, if they chose to put their heart into the matter, in encouraging all these initiatives. I quite agree with the point about financial struceure. It is a thorny problem, but it gets no less thorny by being put off, or being put under wraps while the Government are busy thinking how best they can divest themselves of their responsibility.
Therefore, I congratulate Lord O'Hagan on introducing his amendment in the other place. I give one out of three cheers to the Under-Secretary of State who accepted it, albeit without much grace. But more than that, I believe, as did all the other members of the Select Committee, that the British Waterways Board has done a remarkable job. Anyone who sees its staff in the field, let alone meets them at its headquarters, recognises how much professional expertise and enthusiasm there is among those people.
I do not believe that canals are part of the water industry; I believe that they are something else. I am equally convinced that to sink the BWB within a national water authority would mean that the commercial waterways, as suggested in the amendment, would never fulfil the possibilities that exist for them. For that matter, also happen to believe that the Select Committee's recommendation that British waterways and, indeed, the canal system should be removed from the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and given to the Depart-

ment of Transport is probably the only way of breaking the bias and the prejudice against the BWB and the only way of making this amendment, when it becomes a provision in the 'Transport Act, a reality and something that will give a new breath of life to our canal system.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I declare an interest as a member of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, set up by the Government to advise them on the affairs of the British Waterways Board. We on that committee have tried to look at the question of inland waterways transport and the canal system as a whole. I agree with many, but not all, of the recommendations of the Select Committee.
We on that committee also take the view that it is bad to have the waterways system divided between Ministries and that it should be under the Department of Transport. We believe that the British Waterways Board should be widened to become the national navigation body, responsible for all inland waterways, including estuarial waterways. We do not want the British Waterways Board made powerless. We want it made larger, more powerful and more influential. In that case it should come under the Department of Transport. We agree it is very important that all amenity services—angling, boating and so on—should not be interferred with.
The present system neglects the whole question of freight on water. The figures put out by the Government always indicate the freight carried only by the British Waterways Board. They should include the freight carried on inland waterways all over the country, including estuarial waterways and big rivers. Taking that figure as a whole, one would have a very important contribution to the country's total transport services. That relieves transport on the road, and the more that this can be developed, the better.
We also take the view that, with the development of waterways on the Continent, we need some more links with Continental waterways. Ship after ship comes into Rotterdam or Hamburg and unloads into lorries. The lorries come over here and roll off at Felixstowe and Dover and then travel on our roads.


Much of that stuff could come over in smaller boats or large barges, then go up the rivers and waterways and unload there. We do not take the view that it is a practical proposition to turn the whole of the canals into inland waterways carrying freight of that kind. We accept that most of the canals were built for a different kind of traffic in the past and will be used mainly for amenity purposes in the future.
The Sheffield and South Yorkshire canal, for example, is a test case. It must go ahead and go ahead soon. It has been argued about for a long time. One of the arguments used against it by the Treasury is that we must be able to guarantee what traffic will go on it before the capital goes into it. That is not what is done when a motorway is built. The transport authorities assume that there will be a certain amount of traffic carried on the motorways and that traffic will build up once the motorway is there. Therefore, if we put the capital into making that waterway an effective working transport system, the traffic will use it.
There could then be other extensions of that test case. We would like to see, for example, an extension from Brentford up to Watford. An extension of that kind would bring traffic into the country, as would an extension to take traffic from Liverpool inland. After all, a previous generation built the Manchester Ship Canal, which is that kind of waterway, and surely we can do the same thing today.

Mr. Michael Ward: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the greatest potential lies on the east coast, which faces Europe? /t is developments like the Yorkshire one which he has described and the possibility of the River Nene being developed from Wisbech to Peterborough which offer the greatest chance. This could be done for the cost of about two or three miles of motorway.

Mr. Parker: I agree absolutely. Certainly the east coast should be developed for the trade from Europe. That is irrespective of whether we remain in the EEC. Freight from Europe should come in as quickly as possible and as cheaply as possible.
The present arrangement is very unsatisfactory. It would be much better

to have the whole of the inland waterway system and the docks under one Ministry —preferably the Department of Transport. Therefore, I hope that this amendment introduced by the House of Lords, with which I fully agree, will be a little jerk to press the Government forward in the direction of this kind of policy. We must get a move on with our waterways policy in order to make the most of them, from the freight point of view as well as from the amenity point of view.
I am not in any way detracting from the importance of amenity, which will be increasingly valuable in future. Neither do I detract from the way in which parts of our waterways are being handed over for nature conservancy, which also is very valuable. But it is vital also that whichever body is responsible for running our waterways should have freight as part of its job and include in this the whole of the waterways—inland and estuarial—of this country.

Mr. Onslow: I hope it will have proved useful to the House to have deferred to this stage my few remarks on the amendment. However, I must tell the Minister that I am sorry for him. As he read his speech, it occurred to me that it would have been increasingly appropriate if it had been delivered by the Minister of State, who, unhappily, has found a pressing engagement overseas which makes it impossible for him to come and take this debate. Many of us believe that he should have done so. I am sorry for the Under-Secretary, and I hope he will not take personally the remarks I am about to make about the speech that should have been made by someone else.

Mr. Marks: My speech was a reply to a motion on an amendment for which no reasons had been given.

Mr. Onslow: No doubt, if the Under-Secretary has something better to say, it will be written out for him and he will be able to read it when he replies at the end of the debate. No doubt there are a lot of people around who will start putting pen to paper once I have explained.
The House knows the background to the present situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in his admirable speech reminded us that the Government have rejected practically every piece of advice that has been given on this matter. They have


rejected the advice of the British Waterways Board. The Minister cannot deny that. They rejected the advice of the consultancy that was appointed, and they rejected the opinion of the Select Committee of this House. I hope that the Minister will not deny that. In other words, the steady line coming through rock solid from the Department is "Harvey Smith to the lot of you". That will not do.
When I see what the Select Committee said, I am vindicated in the amendment that I have put down. Paragraph 14 of the preamble to the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries says:
Your committee find that the Board's charge that they have been denied the finance with which to carry out the statutory obligations laid upon them by Parliament is justified. Successive Governments must take full responsibility for not allowing a nationalised industry to carry out its functions; it is for Parliament to ensure that those responsible are not allowed to let this happen again.
I accept that successive Governments have responsibility. My calculations make it six years of responsibility for Labour, compared with four years of Conservative responsibility. Nevertheless, we shall take it as share and share alike. Now it is up to Parliament to ensure that this does not happen again.
In another place, Lord O'Hagan very prudently saw an opportunity to put down an amendment to the Bill which would enable Parliament to go some way towards seeing that this nonsense did not happen again. When I saw the noble Lord's amendment—with which I agree —I thought that he had not gone far enough. Members of another place may not see day to day the full ability of members of the Treasury Bench to wriggle. Although Lord O'Hagan tabled a useful amendment, I would point out that my amendment to his amendment is not so much a probing one but is to be described in the terms of the implement one takes to eels—namely, a pronging amendment. This is a prong, and I want to prong the Minister on it.
It was clear from what the Minister said that he accepted Lord O'Hagan's amendment on two grounds. First, he wished to demonstrate that the Government share the deep interest of most people in the country in canals, and, secondly, he supported the proposals in

the interest of parliamentary progress. If that is to become a common ground for accepting amendments, I can think of a great number of amendments which have been moved from time to time which should have been accepted by the Government of the day in the interest of parliamentary progress. However, I do not suppose that that will become a predecent.
We are left with the feeling that this is a demonstration, a token of the Government's deep interest in the matter. Although such tokens are correspondingly worthless, I would point out that canal tokens at least have a collector's value. What do the Government intend to do to show tangible evidence of their deep interest? I believe that they will show nothing at all, because they need to do nothing.
I tabled my amendment to provoke the Government to take action and to put the prong through the eel. No matter what policy the Government think it right to promote, I am asking that they should report by a given date. It may be an unusual idea that the House should insist that the Government whatever Government it might be, should set a date to say what they intend to do. This example might be emulated elsewhere in other legislation. I do not regard it as an undesirable precedent. It does not seem to me to matter which Government it is aimed at. Even if my amendment were accepted, I do not suppose that it would fall to a Labour Government to honour it. Therefore, the Minister need not worry too much about it.
To show his appreciation of political reality and also to speed parliamentary progress, I believe that the Minister has a further reason to let the amendment pass. Since it will not affect the Labour Government; and it will not affect the Minister of State who has gone off to Canada enjoying himself, why should he not let the amendment pass? He could have a word with the Whips, and I am sure that there would be no trouble and that the provision could be agreed.
We cannot let Parliament be abused in this way. The Government are answerable to this House. It is a good thing that from time to time they should be reminded of this fact. Select Committees seek to remind them, but Governments


tend to ignore the views of such Committees. Now that the House has this chance, I very much hope that it will take it. If I do not receive a sympathetic response from the Minister, I may be compelled to divide the House—and that will not speed parliamentary progress at all.

Mr. Spearing: The problem is that we are faced with four debates rather than two. We have a debate about the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, in which I sympathise with my south Yorkshire colleagues. We have a debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), which calls for a report to be submitted to this House. We have a debate on the Select Committee report on inland waterways and the future role of the British Waterways Board. Finally, but most important of all, we have the amendment tabled in the other place by Lord O'Hagan which provides:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to promote a national policy for the use of inland waterways for commercial transport".
That is the matter to which I wish to devote my speech. I do not think that so far we have heard any speech dealing with that subject.
I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Woking, who wishes to put prongs into Lord O'Hagan's amendment. However, I am not sure that legislation is the best way by which to achieve that end. However, if the Minister accepts the Lords amendment, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will reconsider his suggested course of action.
7.45 p.m.
The heart of the matter lies in a giant misunderstanding, which was instanced in the Minister's opening speech and was echoed in my somewhat impatient intervention. The Department of the Environment and the Government as a whole keep on confusing transport on water—whether rivers, canals or river navigation, which are three separate things—with the British Waterways Board. That happens time after time. It is disgraceful. The Minister's speech yet again showed that to be so.
I understand that of the commercial navigations a total of 500 miles are out-

side the responsibility of the British Waterways Board, whereas 336 miles are inside its responsibility. Although I found the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) interesting, thought that many of his arguments, although valid in another context, were not relevant in the consideration of the matters which I hope the Minister will be thinking about within the next few minutes.
It is the inability to distinguish between the activity of the British Waterways Board and the water track—whether that track be the Thames, an estuary, the Manchester Ship Canal or an improved navigation—which has foxed the whole issue. We are concerned with the function of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I suggest that my right hon. Friend, particularly as a member of a Labour Government committed to the integration of transport, should have some duty in regard to transport, whatever the mode, whether railway, roadway or waterway. Those three modes go together.
Statutory Instrument 1775/76 set up the office of the Secretary of State for Transport. and that document provides in paragraph 1(3):
In this order 'transport functions of the Secretary of State' means such functions of the Secretary of State relating to highways, road traffic, road and rail transport, ports, docks and harbours, and other matters".
It goes on to cite certain orders, but does not mention water transport as such.
Reaching from our ports, docks and harbours into the internal parts of the United Kingdom, we have some excellent waterways, but they are not always the responsibility of the British Waterways Board. Let me take as example the River Thames. As long ago as 3rd March 1972 I had an Adjournment debate on the future of the waterways in which the then Minister totally misunderstood the situation and did not reply to the debate. It was clear that in 1969 3 million tons of goods floated past this House on water transport, none of it to do with the British Waterways Board. In 1976 there was a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on the South Yorkshire Navigation. In May 1975 we had yet another debate on inland waterways dealing with the report of the Select Committee on Nationalised


Industries. That Committee issued recommendations on canals and waterways, which recommendations were not carried out.
The Government have been misdirected on the matter of statistics. Mr. Mark Baldwin, in evidence to the Select Committee, made this clear on page 194 of the Select Committee's report. He produced a learned paper showing that statistics used by the Department on inland waterways were out of date and wrong. I presume that they are the statistics quoted by the Minister earlier in this discussion. I emphasise that we are not concerned with the British Waterways Board alone. We are dealing with the policy for transport on water. It is extraordinary to think that the Secretary of State for Transport of the United Kingdom has no responsibility for any aspect of co-ordinating water transport with other modes. It is clear that other countries of the EEC, some of which are landlocked, work their systems differently. We have our coastline and to some extent the seas around our coast are our off-the-coast waterways, but that is no reason for the Secretary of State not having a responsibility laid upon him.
Let us consider the future of the Royal group of docks. The Secretary of State has made a statement in the House today and has concentrated on the question of productivity, severance and viability, but he does not think of the docks as part of the inland water transport system of this country. Only a few years ago grain was moved from my constituency almost into that of the hon. Member for Woking—to the Cox's Lock Mill at Weybridge, using the highway of the Thames. Alas, it does not now. I wish that it did. It is probably still as cheap and it would certainly reduce road traffic and congestion if those barges were still used. Mr. Stevens of Guildford was a great public benefactor in that respect.
The Secretary of State for Transport cannot look at that problem. If I said that we should encourage greater activity in the Royal group of docks by using the Thames in that way, the Secretary of State would say that it was nothing to do with him. What a ridiculous situation!
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment spoke about the responsibility of various Ministries, and this is

where I disagree with some of my hon. Friends. The British Waterways Board, in whatever form, and the historic canal system probably ought to remain as the prime responsibility of the Department of the Environment, if only because water is certainly an environmental feature. It is not man made, although it is man controlled. Many of the natural waterways of this country are an inherent part of the environment. We improve them and sometimes make them ourselves. We should therefore keep them within the Department of the Environment, though that does not mean to say that the use of some of these waterways should not be the responsibility of another Minister, particularly when he is responsible for transport generally.
Waterways, in their environment, are integrated with flood control, land drainage, town drainage, town sewerage, raw water supply for pure water, non-potable water supply, power station cooling, irrigation, hydro-electric power, pumped electric storage, commercial fisheries, sporting fisheries and water recreation. Any waterway has, potentially, some of those functions, but it also has a transport function.
I suggest that it should be a duty of the Secretary of State for Transport and his Department to ask in what respect one function of waterways, whether natural, man-made or man-modified, can be integrated into an integrated system of transport. That is all that the Lords amendment asks us to do—to fill a gap in the terms of reference.
How far and on what basis the Secretary of State may take his responsibilities—he may say we should run the future capital for canals rather like a turnpike trust, which seems to be the current Government thinking—it should be a matter that the Department of Transport, as well as the Department of the Environment, should consider. There surely must be a duty laid upon the Secretary of State for Transport, particularly in respect of integration—movement from rail to water, from water to land and the responsibility he has already for our docks and harbours.
The arguments and differences about capital for waterways, about the recent Select Committee report, the Fraenkel report or the future of the British Waterways Board, interesting though they may


be, are not the main questions for us to decide. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully that, as the amendment was accepted by a Minister in another place—rightly, in my opinion —he should do likewise. It imposes a broad responsibility on him for looking at these matters. Whether the amendment of the hon. Member for Woking is accepted is another matter, but I suggest that, in logic, the Secretary of State should have a responsibility, and that is all that the amendment seeks.

Mr. Arthur Jones: It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). His knowledge and authority in these matters is well known and widely recognised. I had the great pleasure of sailing with him down the Regents canal and he was able to describe to me the developments that had taken place on either side of the canal and what lay beyond what we could see. It was an extraordinarily interesting occasion for me and I always listen to the hon. Gentleman with great care and interest, knowing that he speaks with wide knowledge and is a sound thinker in these matters.
However, I am not sure that I go all the way with him in this debate. I think that he is guilty of a certain amount of illogicality in the conclusions he draws from the case that he made so well, but perhaps our differences will emerge during my speech.
I support the Lords amendment. The Government were sensible to accept it in another place, and I hope that the Minister will also accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). We should be looking for an identity for the British Waterways Board. It is essentially and properly interested in its freight-carrying role. This came out clearly in the evidence that Sir Frank Price and his colleagues gave to the Select Committee. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) elaborate the case and completely justify the Select Committee's recommendations. I am as critical as he was of the reply received from the Government.
In recognition of the fact that the board's task is essentially that of a freight

carrier, it is to this end that all its efforts and ambitions should be directed. The board's other responsibilities are peripheral and secondary and detract from what should be its main objective.
It has already been mentioned that currently under the board's jurisdiction are 2,000 miles of waterways, only about one-sixth of which—350 miles—relate to commercial carrying. Outside the board's control are more than 600 miles of non-nationalised, commercially used waterways, so the board cannot say that it has sole responsibility for all those waterways used for commercial purposes.
The other uses of the canal system for which the board is responsible are of growing importance. Use of the canal system by pleasure boats rose from 11,573 in 1968 to 20,821 in 1974 and produced an income for the board in 1977 of about £1,260,000. I understand that 25,000 angling licences are issued for the inland waterways for which the BWB is responsible. The board also has wide responsibilities as a water carrier and provides important drainage facilities which produce an income of about £1½ million a year. It is involved in water conservation, flood control, agricultural water supply and agricultural and urban drainage. A list of other responsibilities was recited by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
I welcome the statement made in evidence to the Select Committee by the chairman of the board, Sir Frank Price. I refer to question no. 278 at page 109. Sir Frank said:
Co-operation goes on between the regional water authority operators, and some of our people sit on various committees up and down the country that are run by the RWAs, so that there is co-operation at that level.
In answer to question no. 279 Sir Frank is reported to have said:
These conflicts of interest would be settled between the staff of the RWAs and the staff of the BWB because the conflicts as such are minor ones.
I believe that I am right in drawing the conclusion that there is a happy working arrangement between the regional authorities and the board.
8.0 p.m.
In my view—I do not think that I shall carrry many hon. Members on either side with me—the board should have a future secured upon its role as an independent transport undertaking together with


associated activities such as warehousing and storage. There is a need for its role and purpose to be identified and pursued. The undoubted experience and expertise of its employees need to be concentrated on the single objective
for the use of inland waterways for commercial transport.
I am emphatically against the board's amalgamation and loss of identity by placing it with the National Water Authority, as the Government propose. I am strongly against the Government's proposals for a national water authority. The regional water authorities are sensibly sized administrative units based on river catchment areas. We hear little criticism of RWAs from either side of the House or in the industry generally. There may be criticism about the level of their charges. That is essentially where the criticism I am talking about the organisational arrangements, which I think are working effectively.
Under my proposals the board would retain its docks, warehouses, offices and other facilities and become a user of inland waterways in a similar relationship to vehicular transport on our road system. That would be, perhaps, on some sort of licensing and fee arrangement. I see an analogy between the provision of highways and vehicular transport but it would not be analogous to rail traffic, for which there is no contiguous use for the permanent way.
That is where I part company with those who say that if we have such an arrangement it will be similar to the railway system. It would not be similar because with the waterways we have a whole host of other users. That does not apply to the railway system. It is the recreational purpose to which the canal and inland waterways system is increasingly put. That points purposefully to the arrangement that I outlined. The board would be relieved of its other responsibilities, which I consider should be passed to the RWAs with appropriate financial provision, especially the vast arrears of maintenance which are estimated at £60 million. The Select Committee drew special attention to that issue.
My suggestion would have the effect of placing all inland waterways, canals and rivers alike under RWAs and would harmonise their existing responsibilities for recreation and other use. In other

words, the whole of the inland waterways and the river systems would be the responsibility of the regional water authorities.
I hope that that would meet the point made by Lord O'Hagan in a debate in another place on 11th July. When referring to inland waterways the noble Lord said:
Inland waterways have no friends in Government circles, to the extent that they do not fit in. They are neither transport nor environment.".—(Official Report, House of Lords, 11th July 1978; Vol. 394, c. 1537.]
That has been said repeatedly during the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is in difficulty in that respect. In this instance I support the advocacy of the hon. Member for Newham, South. We need identity in terms of ministerial responsibility, and I think that that is logically extended from what I feel should be the identity for the British Waterways Board, namely, its freight responsibility.

Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a historical accident that the board was responsible for some of the track and the vessels as well? Does he agree that the analogy that he draws is not good because with inland water transport the ownership of the vessel is as on the roads and not on the railways, and not necessarily of the same ownership as the track itself?

Mr. Jones: Ownership of rail wagons is not limited to British Rail. Many concerns have their own wagon systems. I depart again from what the hon. Gentleman says.
The skilled labour force responsible for canal repair and management would be transferred. Wider career opportunities would exist for the labour force and there would be a more extensive application of their experience and knowledge. It should be recognised that expertise does not lie with the board as an identity but with those who practise it.
These suggestions are made in the hope that they may make a contribution to the fulfilment of the objectives of the amendment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I apologise if my contribution seems like a carry-over from the debates on the Scotland Bill. The House might have seen that measure pass from the House


with hearty relief. I had better confess immediately that I have Consolidated Fund Bill debate no. 4 on the future policy of inland waterways in England, Scotland and Wales.
I shall use two or three minutes to bring to the attention of the Government matters that I believe are strictly relevant to the debate and the future of the Board. If anyone on the Opposition Front Bench asks "Why on earth did you not take the opportunity to discuss these matters during the debates on the Scotland Bill?", the truth is that, like many other issues, they were wholly undiscussed during the passage of that Bill.
I put my contribution in question form. I should say, first, that the secretary of the Board has confirmed in writing that the memorandum from which I quote is still the Board's current and considered view. I should also say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I have had discussions with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which takes exactly the same view as does the Board. The third paragraph of the memorandum states:
The Board are concerned that, should the proposals contained in the Bill affecting their undertaking become law, the integrated system which they now control will become fragmented. The funds required for maintenance of the inland waterways and for capital investments will he derived from three sources with the probability that the principles applied in the allocation of such funds will not be consistent.
The next paragraph states:
It will no longer be possible for the Board to allocate their scarce resources of money and manpower in the best interests of the waterways.
For a moment I digress from the quotations. For those of us who have had a long interest in the waterways in Scotland, it is common knowledge that there is one engineer who has to be replaced by staff from Leeds whenever he goes on holiday, or perhaps when he is ill. He depends entirely on Leeds for expertise. It is a highly expert job. We cannot pick up water engineers from anywhere to cope with the problems. It is complete nonsense from an engineering point of view, after all these years of relative success, to split up the British Waterways Board, against its considered views, into not two but three divisions. In the discussions which took place on 18th April

on the Wales Bill, I and others raised the issue of the Llangollen and Montgomery canals.
The memorandum goes on:
The proposals will enable the Scottish Assembly to alter the Board's statutory duties and responsibilities. A separate organisation could be created for the Scottish waterways which, in the view of the Board, would inevitably be much more costly and dissipate staff effort. The existing career opportunities for staff would be prejudiced.
The staff are not all keen on the proposals in the Scotland Bill.
The memorandum continues:
The Board have managed the inland waterways since the 1st January, 1963. They remain of the opinion that these can be administered intelligently and economically only as a unified system. This was acknowledged when the Water Act 1973 became law and reaffirmed in Paragraph 27 of the Green Paper about the future of the Water Industry.
These are not the so-called anti-devolutionists grinding any old axe. These are serious people who have put in writing their professional opinion, to which at no time in the last four years has there been any answer from the Government Front Bench.
Paragraph 7 states:
The Board consider that Clause 84 should be left out of the Bill. They would, however. welcome the proposal for the appointment of Members to the Board representing Scottish and Welsh interests. This would enable these Bodies to keep themselves informed and to comment on the inland waterways in Scotland and Wales, without the untenable financial demarcations proposed in the Bill.
As is known, the Welsh have two representatives—Lady White and her colleague—not because they are Welsh, but because they have certain expertise in this area.
I do not want to bore the House. I feel like an intruder, but I should like to read three more paragraphs. Paragraph 13 states:
The Board have statutory obligations and are apprehensive that if inland waterways in Scotland and Wales were to be financed from funds provided by the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly their standards may differ. This may not be in the public interest since the block grants allocated to the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly may be used for many other pressing purposes.
With my recent experience of Scottish politics, I believe that, if the inland waterways interests think that they will get the favourable allocations to which they have been used in the past, they can think


again. The truth of the matter is that the block grant is finite.
The nature of politics in Scotland is such that maintenance money and work on waterways will somehow drift away to other and what may seem to be—wrongly in my view—more pressing requirements. Therefore, I think that the waterways interests have every right to be concerned about the block grant, remembering that the whole paraphernalia and superstructure of the Assembly will have to be paid for out of the block grant.
Paragraph 15 states:
The Board note that theirs is the only nationalised industry created by the Transport Act 1962 to be affected by devolution. The British Transport Docks Board, for example, have harbours at Ayr and Troon and in South Wales which are managed locally. The functions of the British Railways Board in Scotland and Wales are not affected.
I can tell the House why they are not affected. It is because the National Union of Railwaymen, in the shape of Sid Weighell and Dave Bowman, told the Government not to be so silly as to do anything to break up the railways system. There was a powerful trade union which rightly made its objection known pretty early on in the whole argument.
Paragraph 17 states:
The Board administer the waterways economically and carry out the statutory duties imposed upon them by the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968. They apprehend that under other arrangements the administration of the waterways will be less economic; less efficient overall; not provide an adequate career structure for professional and other staff and put navigation on the inland waterways at risk.
The words at risk "are not of my choosing. They are the printed words, the considered opinion of Mr. Luckett and his colleagues and, indeed, Sir Frank Price, with whom I have had an interview on these matters.
8.15 p.m.
I shall not intrude any further on time. I do not think that it is entirely reasonable to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tonight to give answers. I shall acquit him of that. Of course, in my own defence, I should say that on Tuesday of last week, as soon as Mr. Speaker announced the subjects for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate so that we could put in our names before it came into print, I telephoned the office of my right hon. Friend the Minister of

State, Department of the Environment warning him of the precise subject that I was going to raise.
I end by saying that if there is no answer tonight, at least tomorrow night, or in the early hours of Wednesday morning, as I am sure it will be after all the Londoners have had their say, I shall expect a detailed answer, because it will be the first time in four years, if there is a detailed answer, that any kind of answer has been attempted. I thank my right hon. Friend in advance for favours at 4 o'clock on Wednesday morning.

Mr. Tony Durant: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on his campaign on this subject. I know that he has waged hard and long on behalf of inland waterways. The hon. Gentleman touched on the question of Scotland, but the Welsh situation is more ludicrous. Where the waterways cross the border, we have two authorities dealing with two stretches of often quite short waterways. That is equally nonsensical. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and wish him luck tomorrow night, at whatever the hour may be. Unfortunately, I cannot speak in his debate as I have one of my own later. However, I shall listen to what he says.
This is a very important debate. It is good that the House has had this opportunity to discuss the subject. Many people are concerned about the future of our waterways. An increasing number of organisations and societies are taking an interest. Therefore, it is right that we should debate the matter.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that we were confused because we were debating many different things. He said that really we were talking about the commercial aspect of estuaries and so on. However, the amendment mentions inland waterways. Therefore, we are at liberty to talk about the British Waterways Board and its ramifications. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his connections in London, has a special interest in estuaries and so on and has great experience. I do not challenge his experience in this matter.
One of the keys to the question of inland waterways has been the difficulty of having two Departments taking an interest in the subject. I am sure that they


play one off against the other and, therefore, we do not get any decisions. I favour the Department of Transport taking on this responsibility. In that respect I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones). My hesitation about the water authorities stems from the fact that I have not recently had the good experience of my hon. Friend. As far as I can tell from looking at their accounts, they seem to have lost £200,000 on farming in the last year. Therefore, if they venture into waterways, I believe that we might get a loss there as well. For that reason if no other, I prefer the Department of Transport.
It is a pity that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is not present. The Under-Secretary of State has been put in a difficulty in replying to the debate. The Minister of State has been positive about what he feels regarding inland waterways. He rejected the Select Committee's report. He has been pretty tough in his own White Paper. Therefore, it is a pity that he is not here. Part of the problem was that, when he was made Minister of drought, he decided that there was some water in the canals and that it looked as though it might be useful. Therefore, when he made his great speech about building canals to ship water from west to east, which seemed to be one of our problems as a nation, he thought "This is a good idea. I am on to something here. We shall shift the whole thing to the water authorities because we are interested in the liquid rather than the freight or the leisure."
I am sure that that was the thinking in the Department during the crisis when there was a shortage of rain. The rain began on the day that the Minister was appointed to take responsibility for the drought. I am sure that that is how the matter began. The Government are taking an unwise step by abolishing the British Waterways Board. There have been a Green Paper and a White Paper on this subject. We have not had a debate, although I have pressed for one. It is an important subject, and uncertainty has been created because of the lack of a debate on the future of the water industry.
The British Waterways Board has a good record. It has a deficit but, com-

pared with that of some other nationalised industries, it is a modest deficit. Many good commercial companies have grown out of deficits of that nature to become prosperous concerns. We are not talking about large sums of money in Government terms.
The Board can be proud of itself. It has done a good job in difficult conditions. Each Government have mucked it about. I am not arguing about who is responsible. The only credit that can go to my side of the House is that the Conservatives set up the Board. Apart from that, neither side of the House can claim much credit. We should give the Board a certain amount of credit for what it has done.
Water authorities would be too arbitrary and interested only in the water. They would not be interested in navigation, which is a key factor. One must safeguard navigation if one is to make the waterways commercial.
One of the problems is that the wrong decision was taken in the early days of canals. We went for the narrow lock while the Continent went for the wide lock. The early builders of canals made wide locks. It is a pity that that policy was not continued. The narrow lock has caused many difficulties.
We have heard about the South Yorkshire scheme. It is an imaginative one. We should get on with it. It is no good saying that we do not know its commercial viability. No motorway has been built which is known to be commercially viable. One never knows how many vehicles will travel on a motorway or how much freight will use it. There has to be a certain amount of faith. There is sufficient support from industry in South Yorkshire to support the scheme. We should get on with it.
We have problems with the dockers in Hull. This problem can be cleared up. It is not as serious a problem as it was before. Sense has prevailed. We could achieve a good working relationship. We can put down as history the unhappy saga of the BACAT dockers. I was a parliamentary candidate in South Yorkshire and I know something about the matter. I am keen on the Navigation. It would help to revitalise South Yorkshire.
The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned London. We should not forget


the Brentford and Enfield docks and the Grand Union canal. That is a prosperous unit. If we could get the hon. Member's suggested scheme for London going, there is no reason why there should not be viability. They are prosperous docks which are well constructed, and imaginative people run them. We should not spurn this scheme, because it would help to revitalise the area. That is why I welcome the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). It would bring positive results. That is what is needed. The people concerned have been mucked about. They want something positive.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) is chairman of the organisation that is keen on revitalising freight in the Thames estuary. There is scope in that direction. We have seen an increase in the number of pleasure craft on the Thames. We need an imaginative, driving plan so that people know what is to happen.
There is also scope for the development of inland ports. The inland ports are all reasonably successful. A cheap form of transport is involved, particularly for bulk traffic. The Secretary of State has talked about the problems involved in the maintenance and repair of motorways which are badly treated by heavy loads.
I deplore the Government's reaction to the Select Committee's report. If we are to have Select Committees, the Government should take notice of them. It is time that Back Benchers began to tell Governments, of all complexions, that there is no point in having a Select Committee procedure if Governments say that they do not agree with them. That is a complete waste of hon. Members' time. It takes away the rights of Back Benchers. Such rights are important because we represent the electorate. The Minister should have given a more constructive reply to the report. It was a good report. Much work went into it and it was widely appreciated by those concerned.
The figures in the White Paper that followed the report are misleading. The Committee for Environmental Conservation issued a Press release this morning which challenged the figures. It said that they are heavily biased in one direction and that only the freight element is taken into account. As hon. Members

have said, the scope is wider than that of the British Waterways Board.
If the Government need more evidence, there is a report called "Barges or Juggernauts" published in 1974 which was produced by the inland shipping group of the Inland Waterways Association. The chairman was Frederic Doerflinger. The then Minister welcomed the report. He said that it was useful, that the Government were to study it and that it contained ideas for the development of the commercial side of our canals. But it has sunk without trace. It is a pity that this valuable document should not have been looked at more closely by the Government.
On 29th August 1974 the then Minister for Transport said:
I can say at once that the Government is at one with the Association in wishing to see as much freight as possible transferred from roads on to rail or waterway wherever it is economically, socially and environmentally sensible to do so. I would certainly welcome any waterway development scheme which can he justified in this way.
Since then we have had more reports on inland waterways, and nothing has happened. That is why I attack the Government in general about this subject.
When the Under-Secretary says "There has been £5 million allocated and is not that grand?", we must remember that this £5 million is only to shore up banks for safety. It will do nothing but keep the water in the canals and help to reduce the number of drowning accidents. It really cannot be put down as a great credit. It is a lifeline which is just doing some remedial work which is essential. One cannot immediately claim that as a great success—far from it. It is simply a useful thing that the Government have put forward.
However, I understand that work has not actually started. The Minister said that this was because the British Waterways Board had not yet put its proposals forward. I understand that that is not true. The hold-up now seems to be in relation to taking on more staff, and it is all to do with pay policy. When we are talking about safety, that is not the way in which to carry on. A sum of money has been awarded. The British Waterways Board is anxious to get oh with the job. Why should it not be done'' I do not want to use bad phrases in the


House, but I really believe that the Government should do something with their fingers and get on with it.
8.30 p.m.
The next important thing to take on board on this subject is the environment point. As a society, we now have to look at the difficulties of our environment and the increasing amount of heavy road transport, which is causing difficulties in many of our communities. Water transport could do a very useful job here in taking off the main roads things such as aggregates. One could get a chain-belt system of barges flowing along, unloading at one end and loading at the other, with two on their way. This is the sort of raw material for which there is no hurry. This would be economic and useful, and it is something that could be done.
What I think people in the inland waterways world want is confidence in the future. They want to be able to plan. The trouble is that they cannot plan. They keep believing that this scheme or that scheme will happen, and then nothing happens. All that we get is more reports, more debates and more arguments, but nothing is actually done.
Therefore, I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I support the Lords amendment, to which I understand the Government will be giving way anyway. Let us have a little action on this front so that those who feel strongly on this subject can play a part in our society in improving the environment, our economy and the way of life of many people and in making a worthwhile and useful contribution to our society.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I shall speak for only a few moments. We Members belonging to the South Yorkshire area have been pressing for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation improvement scheme for many years. We have had discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment. We think we have made a good deal of progress.
However, when we compare our canal waterways in this country with those abroad, we find that, in spite of the fact that there may be better facilities abroad, we are certainly not taking advantage of what we could do with our waterways.

For instance, the South Yorkshire Navigation scheme can bring 400-ton barges up to Doncaster, but only 90-ton barges from Doncaster to Rotherham. For a long time a scheme has been in the Department of the Environment to make it possible for 700-ton barges to come right through to Rotherham.
We hope that we have made a good deal of headway. We are expecting at any moment that the Secretary of State for the Environment will give an answer in our favour. Therefore, it is with some reluctance that I enter the debate even briefly, because I do not want to cause any friction between the two Departments concerned. However, hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will use his good influence with the Secretary of State to try to help to make certain that this scheme comes into operation.
The cost of the scheme is about £8 million to £9 million. We estimate that we can get some help from the EEC, if the Government will only give the scheme their blessing. The South Yorkshire county council has promised up to £1 million in help. There is a good deal of support in the districts through which the waterway will run its course. I am certain that when it comes to the freightage, it will certainly not be what has been said on many occasions by people who are opposed to the scheme—that it will not be a viable proposition.
The other point that matters is that in South Yorkshire, especially in my constituency, some beautiful parks could be made alongside the canal. People would enjoy the amenity of walking there. Boating amenities could be provided. I am certain that it would be a great advantage to the area to try to uplift it in places where its present condition is chaotic and the outlook is deplorable, because it is really an old mining area and the colliery tips are still there.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will use his good offices, very kindly, gently and persuasively, with the Secretary of State for the Environment, because the South Yorkshire Members have been working so hard to get this scheme through that we do not want to say or do anything that will retard the progress that we have made. Therefore, I have today been trying only to persuade my hon. Friend, without giving the details of the scheme that I could


give. We have put our case so well that there is little more we can say, and it is now time that a decision was made.
We must look forward. Looking back will lead to further deterioration and a maintenance cost of £2 million to keep the waterway in its present condition. If we rebuilt the sides and the locks, the upkeep would be much less and we should have a good waterway.
Water is the cheapest form of transport. Nations will make better use of waterways to conserve energy in the future. We could certainly do so. Posterity will then be grateful. If we do not, posterity will say that we have neglected our duties to them because we have not improved the waterways and their environment.

Mr. Lee: This debate is full of ironies. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who spoke for the Opposition and made a good case, spent a good deal of time arguing for increased Government expenditure—not in this instance on defence and only to a limited extent in his constituency. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and others argued, at least by implication, for a co-ordinated transport policy—something that we or our predecessors have been seeking for 30 years.
The House of Lords has passed an admirable amendment, which is not the least of the ironies. I was twitted good-naturedly a little while ago by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for being a less than unstinted admirer of the other place, but it seems to have done a good job on this amendment. To complete the irony, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), because I am tempted to vote for it if it is put to the vote.
I support this approach for three reasons. First, I am conscious of the value and importance of canals. The city of Birmingham, part of which I still represent, is one of the few large cities in the world, let alone in this country, which, having neither a riverfront nor a seafront, has as its only unifying water environment the confluence of an important and historic canal system and one which can easily be seen to have been neglected over the years. That goes for

the potential of its environment and its commercial potential.
I am not often in agreement with the hon. Member for Woking, but I think that it is high time that a time limit was stipulated for a report on this matter. The hon. Member for Newbury took the Minister to task, not wholly fairly, about the long delay. All Governments bear responsibility, but whoever is responsible the story is a deplorable one of neglect and procrastination. It is about time that it was ended. Eighteen months from now, which is the date in the amendment, is adequate time for a definitive report. This not unreasonable request should be acceded to.
My third reason for taking this line is this. Tremendous sums of money are spent on developing means of fast transport. Staggering sums have been spent on developing new aircraft—on Concorde in particular—to transport people from one place to another. By contrast we spend a modest sum on the matters under discussion tonight.
Certain articles which it is sought to transport from one place to another are not required in a hurry. This is where the canals can be particularly valuable. The canal system is a form of floating storage. Many bulk goods can be moved with great speed by road or rail, albeit in the case of roads to the obvious detriment of the environment and to the added hazard of other road users, because they are conveyed in large containers. At the end of their journey they are decanted at a spot where they are not needed for a considerable time. It is surprising that the canals have not been used to a much greater extent to carry goods in bulk, the order for which can be placed a considerable time ahead and for which delivery is not needed in a hurry.
That is the most important reason why I suggest that it is desirable that the Secretary of State for Transport should prepare a report upon the use of canals for commercial purposes as stipulated in the amendment. I hope that the Minister will go further and say that he is prepared to accept the amendment and will put some time limit on the production of the report. It is right that it should he the Department of Transport. However pleasant the environmental aspects of canal usage may have become in the past


few years, it must not be forgotten that it is the commercial aspect which is the most important. I hope that my hon. Friend will now surprise us all, particularly the hon. Member for Woking, by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I shall be very brief because excellent speeches have been made in support of the concept of our inland waterways being maintained and developed. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) was right to argue that the Department of Transport should be responsible for inland waterways, especially for freight aspects. To hand inland waterways over to the water authority would be to supervise their death. One is driven to the conclusion that someone wants to pass the buck and let our waterways die. It seems to me that the authority most likely to do that would be the water authority, because it has no interest in transport whatever.
8.45 p.m.
It is significant that at the very time when we are talking about the conservation of energy we are allowing to die from neglect the one form of transport which is exceedingly economical in the use of energy. It is significant also that in the least few months there has been increase in freight carrying on inland waterways, and I hope that this is the beginning of a trend which will develop as energy and petrol, in particular, become increasingly in short supply.
Surely this is the time to make sure that our canals shall survive and, in order that they shall survive, that they are better maintained and developed. The one case which calls for priority has already been referred to, namely, the inland waterways system of South Yorkshire. These waterways are the most likely to show a return on freight carriage. Indeed, they are our best freight waterways.
It seems to me that now is the time to use, for example, part of the profits we get from North Sea oil in an undertaking of this kind. It would be a job creation scheme on a vast scale. We could be profitably using capital, British labour and British materials to improve a national asset.
It would be a disaster if responsibility for inland waterways were moved to the water authority. The Government have said that they will accept the Lords amendment, but we hope that that will mean that they will do more than just say that they support the development of inland waterways.
I conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Reading, North, who said all that needs to be said about the maintenance of our inland waterways. It was a great speech on the efficacy of Socialist planning in transport. None of us on these Benches could have made a better speech, and I sincerely congratulate the hon. Gentleman. I hope that what he said can be taken as signalling the beginning of the end of the partisan attitude to transport problems in general.

Mr. Marks: When the Government come to implement the new clause which has come to us in the form of this Lords amendment, which I shall shortly ask the House to accept, we shall not be able to say that we have had any lack of advice or lack of variety in the advice put to us.
Some hon. Members have suggested that responsibility for inland waterways should move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Transport. It has been suggested that waterways should be handed over to the regional water authorities. There has been great enthusiasm for certain projects, and I shall come to some of them in a moment. We have had the views of the canal enthusiasts and of hon. Members with constituency interests. But we have not had an indication of the view of the official Opposition—certainly not on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) who suggested that he might vote for the hon. Gentleman's amendment said that both that and the Lords amendment were for a co-ordinated transport policy. I was Under-Secretary of State for Transport for some time, and over and over again I heard the phrases "co-ordinated transport system" and "integrated transport system". In fact, the amendment to the Lords amendment would do exactly the opposite of what my hon. Friend suggested. It would take one part of transport—inland waterways—and then take


one part of inland waterways—freight transport—and ask for a specific policy on that apart from all the others.

Mr. Onslow: My amendment would be out of order if it did anything different.

Mr. Marks: I do not follow that.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke at length. I had thought that, as the hon. Member for Woking suggested, the hon. Gentleman would give the views of the Opposition Front Bench on the hon. Member for Woking's amendment, but in the whole of his speech he did not once refer to that amendment. Even now, I do not know whether the Opposition Front Bench supports or rejects it, but I do not think that that is all that important.
Various suggestions have been made, particularly by Conservative Members, for increased public expenditure—I presume, for a certain amount of interference with the various independent trusts which at present run the waterways which are not run by the British Waterways Board. We are talking about public expenditure. What the Select Committee said, and what the House has largely been saying, is that more should have been spent on inland waterways over the past eight or 12 years, and certainly in the past two years, at a time when the Opposition were crying "Cut public expenditure even more than you have cut it already."
The question of the Fraenkel report was raised. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) hit the nail on the head when he said that the delay on the question of the Board's programme with the money available was not on the programme but on the question of the staff pay that would have resulted had the Board's suggestions been accepted. That would have broken the incomes policy, and we were not going to do that in any circumstances.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would the Minister care to be a little more specific? Am I not right in saying that the £5 million will require an increase in the Board's staff? I do not see how that in itself breaches the pay code in any way.

Mr. Marks: It would have breached the pay code if officers of the board had had increases of more than 10 per cent. That was what the programme suggested.

The argument was that they had added responsibilities, and there were many other reasons. However, that is not a point with which I have been dealing. I shall try to inform the hon. Gentleman about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred to the various schemes which have been put forward. I referred in my opening speech to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, saying that the Secretary of State was examining it extremely closely and that we hoped to have something to say fairly soon. But that is the only scheme that the Board has submitted to this Government. I do not know whether it submitted any to other Governments. If it did, they were not accepted.
Both Governments initially rejected the scheme. Now that local authorities are saying that they, too, are prepared to put more finance into it, now that there is the possibility of EEC support and there have been noises from some of the industries, we must, of course, look at the matter again. This is a key scheme for British waterways. None of the others, including the Nene, the Brentford scheme and the Grand Union canal in London, has been submitted to the Government by the Board, and it is the Board's job to do so.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the Sheffield and South Yorkshire canal system. But, to be fair to the British Waterways Board, it knows full well that it is limited in what kind of scheme it can put forward and what the Government can accept. I am certain that it has put the scheme forward because it is the most viable of the lot. That does not mean that there are no other schemes that the Board would like to bring into operation. It has pressed for this scheme because it feels that it should go before the others.

Mr. Marks: Then perhaps we shall see the others at a later date.
I accept the tremendous interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He would have gone much further than most other people in almost bringing the question of coastal waterways in with the whole question of the inland waterways. We have to examine this carefully. There is a difference


between inland waterway traffic and seagoing traffic.
The statistics which we provided, and which have led to our being accused of deliberately misleading the House and the public, were supplied by the British Waterways Board. As far as we know, there are no others available—in lighterage, for instance. The reply to the report of the Select Committee dealt with the figures from the British Waterways Board. It might be helpful if I were to give them for the first five or six years. In 1972 the amount was 91·42 million ton kilometres; in 1973, 89·78; in 1974, 73·05; in 1975, 73·67; in 1976, 71·95; and in 1977, 72·88. The figures for 1977 were not received until the report had gone to the printers. There was no question of any deliberate misleading. I welcome the news given to a Back Bencher by way of a Written Answer that the figures from the Board for the first six months of this year show an increase. On balance, there has been a considerable reduction over the years, particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Mr. Durant: The point I was trying to make, and which other hon. Members made, arose under item 20 of the Board's report, which was dealing with commercial traffic on the waterways. That related to BWB waterways. We have to take account of the other waterways. Consequently, this is a misleading statement.

Mr. Spearing: There is Manchester.

Mr. Marks: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South mentions Manchester. Is he serious? We are talking about one of the largest ports in the country, and a profitable one at that. It handles seagoing transport and is quite different from the normal inland waterways about which we are talking.

Mr. Spearing: Surely the Manchester Ship Canal is an inland waterway. It is man-made. It allows ships which have crossed the Atlantic from, say, Chicago to come into Manchester, which is not a coastal port. We are talking about the development of waterways. Does not my hon. Friend agree, whatever the merits of the case, that it is a waterway in just the same way as the Thames, which brings in petrol and oil from the estuary to the depots at west London?

Mr. Marks: I accept that, but in practice the Manchester Ship Canal has been regarded as part of the sea. What the founders of the canal said—and I say this as a Member for a Manchester constituency—was "We have brought the sea to Manchester." In the Government's reply we were dealing with a report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The British Waterways Board is a nationalised industry. The statistics used by the Select Committee and the Government were provided by the Board.
I promise my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that I shall be replying to his points. I doubt whether I would be in order in replying to all of them since there was a point in our debate when we were interrupted by the announcement of Royal Assent to the Scotland and Wales Bills. I should be in difficulties if I were to go too far along those lines. However, I promise that when I have finished the debates that I have coming—one on Festivals at Stonehenge, one on lead pollution and one on the staff at Buckingham Palace—I shall reply to him as well.
9.0 p.m.
There is no question of our not continuing our support for the inland waterways. This Government have done far more than the Conservative Government in support of the waterways. We shall continue to do so. We shall listen to the demands of the Opposition to subsidise with public expenditure commercial freight and the cruising waterways, and we shall continue to do just that.

Mr. Onslow: As I am confident that this debate has had the desired effect of concentrating the minds of those who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to Lords amendment no. 11.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment no. 11 agreed to.

New Clause D

DUTY OF BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 11, line 17. at end insert new Clause D—
("D. It shall be the duty of the British Railways Board to run all sections of its


business in such a way so as to improve the service to its customers, reduce its costs, improve its productivity, increase its efficiency and reduce its reliance upon subsidies or grants whether under this Act or any other measure.")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is impossible not to regard this amendment without a surge of sympathy. No one who praises virtue could be against the sentiments expressed in it. Anything that is desirable in any public transport enterprise, except possibly lower fares, is contained within it. It appears to be a distillation of the Government's policy for the railways, culled from our White Paper on transport policy and dressed up as legislation.
However, the drafting clearly implies that the duties placed on the British Railways Board by the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968 no longer apply. That is not so. The existence of these statutes, one brought in by a Conservative Government and the other by a Labour Government, could give rise to serious difficulties if the amendment in its present form were to reach the statute book.
For example, Section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1962 still applies to the British Railways Board. It provides that it is the duty of the Board
to provide railway services in Great Britain … and to have due regard … to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
It is not clear how the duties that would be imposed by this amendment would stand in relation to the duties imposed by the 1962 Act. For example, would the new duty to reduce costs override the existing duty to have regard to safety of operation?
Section 41(2) of the Transport Act 1968 still applies to the British Railways Board. It imposes the normal duty to break even, taking one year with another, over all its activities. It is not clear how the new duties would relate to this existing one either. Would the new duty to improve services in all sections of the business override the duty to break even?
The Railways Act 1974 makes the Secretary of State the competent authority for giving directions to the Board, imposing on it obligations of a general nature for the operation of the railway passenger system. He then has to pay it compensation provided for under the EEC

regulations. It is plain that in principle the Board could be given a direction which would conflict with the new duty to reduce its reliance upon subsidies or grants—a very important part of the amendment.
The amendment shows a very praiseworthy concern to promote virtue in railway administration, but a somewhat confused notion of the effects and purposes of the existing legislation. It would place new statutory duties on the Railways Board, but let us look at what the Board has achieved without the benefit of these rather vague new duties. For example, it has, with the co-operation of the railway unions, reduced manpower by more than 12,000 since the beginning of 1975. Although no one can pretend that further progress on productivity will be at all easy, it is from increased productivity that the other virtues in this amendment—lower costs, increased efficiency and reduced reliance on subsidy—will flow.
Another achievement is that the Board has kept within the cash limits on passenger transport support, set in 1976 and 1977, and shows every sign of being able to do so in 1978. It has driven down the freight deficit and now seems likely to break even on its non-passenger business. Within the constraints of limited Government support, and an investment ceiling, it has continued to invest in modern rolling stock and better track and signalling, and continues to improve the service to its customers in terms of greater comfort and reduced journey times. It has taken note of the general pressure for increased accountability and has published more information this year in the annual report and accounts and elsewhere than ever before.
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the Board will publish additional statistical information on the lines proposed in recommendations 44 to 47 of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its report on British Railways, with which this House is familiar. Hon. Members will agree that this is ample evidence that the Board is aware of the need to achieve the objectives of the amendment, and to demonstrate that it has done so. It is doing this without the benefit of statutory duties which the other place would impose upon it. Therefore, we should


disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The first point I wish to make about the amendment is that basically in transport policy there are many real divisions between the two sides of the House, and we rehearsed one or two of them earlier today, but I hope that on railways policy there is a substantial amount of common ground between the two sides. I am not pretending that we agree in every detail, but it has become clear in the past two and a half years that there is developing common ground on railways policy, and that is something that the House will welcome.
I had hoped that the sentiments expressed in this amendment would receive support from all those interested in the future of the railways industry. Whether this goes into the Bill is rather less important than ensuring that the aims set out should be accepted by the House and by the railway industry. There is no great issue at stake here.
We should remind ourselves that the Bill is making grants of up to £3,000 million to British Rail. That is the kind of commitment that is being made, and it is right to remind the industry of that. In all conscience, I do not believe that the industry can complain that not enough is being done in this respect. The annual operating subsidy of passenger services alone is more than £360 million. Given that kind of investment, the passenger and the taxpayer have a right to demand that all the aims set out in the amendment are achieved.
I wish to pick out two of these aims. The first is that of improving the services to the customer. It is right to put that at the start. Transport policy is essentially about seeking to meet the needs of the customer—the passenger or the freight customer with goods to move. If the railways fail to achieve this, they fail in everything.
Over the last few years rail services have improved. The new chairman, Sir Peter Parker, deserves great credit for that, as does his predecessor, Sir Richard Marsh, whom we are pleased to welcome to our camp, as I see from the Sunday Express. But, above all, credit goes to the thousands of people who work on British Rail.
Nevertheless, improving services is a continual process. There is an important part to be played by the transport users' committees representing the passengers' interests. They were set up essentially to put the passengers' case, or the customers' case, and I will not repeat the criticisms that I have already made of their present composition. Suffice to say that an incoming Conservative Government will want to review their work and will seek to give the passenger an independent and, above all, a strong voice.
The second point I emphasise is the aim of improving the productivity of British Rail. This is absolutely central and of the utmost importance. To call for high productivity is not to launch an attack on those who are working for British Rail. It is one of the major ways in which the other aim of meeting the needs of the customer can be achieved. The customer wants an efficient service at the lowest possible cost. Two-thirds of the operating costs are wages and salaries and it must follow that high productivity is the goal.
Sir Peter Parker said that productivity was the rock on which to build the future of the railways. That is not to understate the achievements of the vast. A substantial improvement in productivity has been achieved in the past 15 years, and the railway unions deserve credit for that advance. However, no industry can afford to reduce its effort in this respect.
The question that remains is how we should handle the relationship between Government and British Rail and between the taxpayer and British Rail. There is, in my view, no doubt about what our approach should be. I very much welcome what the Under-Secretary of State said in his brief remarks. I believe that the approach should be based on the maximum of open government and that the maximum information must be provided in respect of government, this House and the public.
Sir Peter Parker has spoken of the contract between the Government and British Rail. By that he means that British Rail enters into an agreement with the Government to provide services that cannot be met out of the fare box. There are other ways in which that concept can be expressed, but the central idea is acceptable—provided, and only provided, that the contract is as specific as


possible. What is not acceptable is a system of total blanket support which does not distinguish between the costs of the different services provided by British Rail or between the costs of commuter services and the costs of, for example, Inter-City.
The reasons for separate accounts are not just reasons of public policy, important as they are. They also vitally affect rail passengers. The rail passengers also have a right to know the cost of the services which they are using and for which they are paying dearly. This applies particularly to the commuter who needs to use the railways to get to work.
This point was made strongly by the Price Commission in its report on British Rail. That report mentioned the discrimination in fares policy and took the view that any further discrimination against London and the south-east in subsequent fare increases would be difficult to justify until improved cost analysis enabled a clearer view to be taken on appropriate objectives on the balance of revenue as between London and the south-east and the rest of the system. That was the point which the Opposition have been putting consistently. We have emphasised that more information is necessary and that the passenger has a right to have that information to allow him to evaluate the service and the value for money he is receiving.
The question is how such a system of separate accounts can be devised. We in the Opposition have consistently put forward the case for such a step. Initially this was resisted by the predecessors of the present Labour Minister. The argument then advanced was that the network was the thing and that the whole system was indivisible. That is no longer the case because it is accepted by the Government that the accounts of British Rail can be broken down in a division between the major businesses—between Inter-City and London and the south-east, the PTE services and other country services as well as freight and parcels.
These matters are now common ground between the two sides of the House. The only dispute relates to the way in which such accounts should be presented. Previously British Rail used a system of cost allocation similar to that used, broadly speaking, by every

other railway system in the world. British Rail criticised that as being unrealistic and not meeting its purpose. I believe that the criticisms were overstated, but in the past few years another system—the avoidable costs system—has been developed and great reliance is placed on that. I believe that the difficulties of the original cost allocation were overrated, but what is important is not so much the exact system, although we have argued about that, but that there should be a yardstick and that it should be produced as soon as possible so that Parliament, the public and passengers know exactly where they stand.
We do not intend to divide on the amendment. What the Under-Secretary said was fair and met the objectives of the amendment which are accepted by virtually every hon. Member. There is a great deal of common ground on policy towards the railways, and I hope that this will be recognised inside the House and outside and, above all, I hope that that position will be preserved.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) used the amendment to make a number of unexceptionable comments about rail policy. I think that he will agree that many of the points that he put in a non-partisan way indicate that he is pushing at an open door in respect of, for example, greater information. The degree of statistical information available to hon. Members has increased in the past few years and the trend is very much in the direction that he suggested.
It was pleasing to note the non-partisan way in which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke. Both sides of the House seem to agree that the amendment serves no useful purpose. Indeed, it is difficult to see what purpose was intended because it is not a comprehensive list of the various duties that should fall on British Rail. For example, there is no reference to safety or to good industrial relations. It is a selective list and is self-contradictory. It suggests that services should be improved and costs should be reduced, and there could conceivably be a conflict between those duties.
There is no guidance on which duty would prevail if a duty included in the amendment conflicted with, for example.


the general duty under section 3(1) of the Transport Act 1972. There is also a conflict between section 41(2) of the Transport Act 1968, which provides that British Rail should break even on its activities as a whole, and the section of the amendment relating to the duty to run all sections of the business in such a way as to improve them. That presumably means that profitability is to be sought in each section.
In addition, there is no reference to a duty to obey Government policies on pay or cash limits. The suggestion is that the British Railways Board should serve many masters. It would be given many different orders. The amendment is a recipe for chaos.
It has also been suggested to me that the provisions of the amendment might be enforceable by any aggrieved individual member of the public and, taking the ACAS precedent, it might not be too fanciful to suppose that a member of the public could sue the Board if there were a continued failure of trains to arrive on time. I am not convinced by that suggestion, but it is at least a danger which has been mooted.
Clearly, this is a bad amendment. It is self-contradictory and contradicts British Rail's existing commitments. I am glad that both sides of the House agree that it should be resisted.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am glad to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) as he and I share more interests than merely a common interest in the future of the railways and an interest in the well-being of the British-German parliamentary group.
We are discussing an important if unexceptional amendment that comes to us from another place. I entirely agree with the admirable sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). My hon. Friend said that in dealing with the railways the Government now seem to be getting on to the right track. That is long overdue.
Many of my constituents are hard-pressed commuters. I have about 4,000 commuting constituents, not to mention their families. They would be pleased to find the principles contained in the amend-

ment pinned above every station master's door, in Sir Peter Parker's office and throughout the union headquarters of ASLEF and the NUR.
My constituents believe that they are supporting the railway system by patronising it heavily morning and evening, by using the service, by paying what are now steep fares and by contributing towards the public service obligation in the form of their taxes. They feel that they should be getting the best possible value for money from the railway system.
I turn briefly to the various subheadings in the amendment. It is right to stress that British Rail's prime duty is to the customer. I pay tribute to the way in which British Rail has recently drawn much more attention to that duty in its marketing efforts and in other ways. The indications that British Rail is trying to reduce its costs involve a more double-edged consideration. A more realistic view would be that British Rail should at least try to contain its costs and to contain any unavoidable rising costs.
We are all aware from the position on the Continent of the difficulties of running any public railway system, especially in areas where it cannot be economic because of the rush hour and the under-utilisation of the rolling stock for many hours of the day.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has already observed, the key to the amendment is productivity. I need not weary the House by repeating what he said. Suffice it to say that my constituents regard the need for increased productivity in British Rail not as an empty slogan. It is an issue about which they care passionately. They are having to use the system day in and day out to get to work. They have to find the money to pay their fares and to buy their season tickets from post-tax income or disposable income. That is not easy for anyone these days. It used to be thought that those who commuted to London were extremely rich. That view is totally belied by the evidence.
One of the keys to increased productivity is not the negative approach to which the Minister referred, such as the decline in manpower, but the need to get a larger, more efficient and more thriving railway system. If we can boost passenger miles and if the manpower element does


not increase disproportionately, costs not only may be controlled but should be reduced as a proportion of total costs. I should like to see increased efficiency come about through a larger and more effective railway system running services tailored to the needs of the customers, especially commuters.
The amendment refers to reducing the reliance on subsidies or grants. I merely say to the House that we have to pay for a railway system somehow. In so far as the necessary finance cannot be obtained from subsidies or grants, it has to come from increased efficiency, increased productivity and fares.
I very much hope that the Minister, the Government and the management of British Rail have taken fully on board the salutary warning in paragraph 5.4 of the Price Commission's report. 'Those of us who represent people who commute into London know that these groups have tended to be discriminated against in recent years in the fares policy because they are regarded as a captive commuter market. That has been part of British Rail's marketing strategy. Therefore, we hope that the balance may be redressed more in their favour in future.
With those few provisos, I welcome the sentiment that lies behind the amendment. I wish British Rail every good fortune in future, because its success will be to the benefit of my constituents.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: The trouble is that the amendment puts together two incompatible objectives, and the danger is that it clouds the issue. People will fail to see the real problem. The amendment might have been acceptable to Herbert Morrison about 40 years ago when many industries were nationalised and he was saying "We must provide better services, but they should pay their way by making a profit."
To suggest that we must, on the one hand, improve the service and, on the other hand, cut down the grant is to provide two incompatible objectives. We all know that if the grants were sufficient the lot of the commuter, especially in London, would be greatly improved. If there were enough grants, irrespective of costing, we would get better carriages, better signalling and better attendance to the needs of the commuter.
The railways have been given strict financial limits and have in many ways

been forced to cut down on vital expenditure. There are other ways in which productivity could be improved. For instance more could be made of the advanced passenger and high-speed train if the track were improved. Freight services would be better if we had more air-brake vans. Productivity, comfort and efficiency could be improved if grants were as readily available here as they are on the Continent and in Japan and America.

Mr. Forman: Is there not a legitimate distinction between the operating subsidy of £350 million a year and the Government's support of British Rail's ongoing capital investment programme? I entirely agree that the time has come to switch to the forms of capital investment that can best meet the needs of the customers, particularly mass travel customers such as my constituents who commute into London.

Mr. Atkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I should emphasise that for the time being and perhaps for many years to come it will be necessary to have grants for social responsibilities. That applies particularly to commuters. We must recognise that commuting services are very expensive.
Let us not be contradictory in our speeches. For instance, we cannot say that free market forces should operate and at the same time not charge the commuter what the market will bear. British Rail has nothing against the commuter. However, commuters are a captive market. In the free operation of market forces, that is the kind of thing that happens. It is ruthless and I do not like it. The Price Commission was right to complain about discrimination, but it is the discrimination of the market. We are trying to force British Rail, as we have always done, to provide a social service for commuters, for instance, but at the same time to pay its way. These are incompatible objectives. Therefore, we are in a difficulty. I believe that commuters should not be discriminated against.
9.30 p.m.
Season tickets cut deeply into post-tax income. I hope that the Chancellor will agree to give tax remission on season tickets. I hope that more firms will buy


season tickets for secretaries and others and get tax relief on them. I read about that in the evening newspaper tonight.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) rightly said that salaries and wages constitute about two-thirds of the cost of running the railways and that we should use labour efficiently. But the hon. Member does not recognise that much of the wages and salaries are paid on fixed labour costs that must be paid in order to operate the railways. The easiest way to increase productivity is to use the services of the fixed assets more productively. We must use more trains and carry more on them. In that way, the productivity of employees would jump overnight.
I hope that the House will bear that argument in mind. I am glad that there is a bipartisan attitude in the debate and that hon. Members understand British Rail's difficulties.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not detain the House long but I wish to raise one matter which involves British Rail's reliance on subsidies and grants under the Bill or any other measure. This year we have perhaps allowed ourselves to believe that British Rail requires less money from the taxpayer than before. That idea has come about because of the statements made by the chairman of British Rail and others that it has met its financial objectives.
In one sense that is true. Such statements are accurate to the extent that a subsidy figure has been worked out to enable British Rail to break even and it has more than met the amount. But that can give a misleading picture. It gives the impression that British Rail is breaking even when it is relying on £350 million, at least, in passenger traffic subsidy. That is a large sum of money.
Even that figure disguises the total amount of grant which British Rail receives. In 1977 total Government grants to British Rail amounted to £493·3 million. I imagine that the sum will be higher in 1978. Any industry that is using up £1½ billion of taxpayers' money each year must pay attention to its costs and be aware that at some stage the subsidy can be too great for any Government to underwrite.
I do not necessarily believe that the amendment is profitable in itself. But we must not fall into public relations jargon which gives the impression that British Rail has turned the corner in financial terms and that the amount of subsidy and grant will fall drastically. Indeed, I fear that the opposite will be true.
British Rail is keen to say how difficult it is to cost out its services. But it is also positive that it knows that the south-eastern services are making huge losses. I do not think that it can have it both ways. If it is sure that commuter services are making big losses, why is it unable to tell us the true figures for running its system overall?
If a yardstick can be applied that shows that a big loss is being made in one area, clearly the same yardstick can be used in other directions. Thus, these little booklets that come out telling me how difficult it is to account for British Rail services do not really convince me. They make me suspect a smokescreen that we have to break through and force from British Rail more accurate figures until we can fairly say that we know how it is spending every pound of the money that it is getting in subsidies and grants.
Having uttered those few words, I shall. delay the House no longer.

Mr. Harry Cowans: I regard this as a thoroughly bad amendment. One could possibly agree with the individual items mentioned in it, but if they are taken together a different story unfolds. I believe that the amendment was drawn in the misbelief that many of the duties imposed on the British Railways Board under the 1962 and 1968 Acts were mysteriously removed by the 1974 Act. That is not the case, and I think that there will be wide agreement about that.
One aspect that has not been touched upon is that if, because of some strange change of heart, the House were to carry the amendment, as I understand it what is proposed will be enforceable by law, yet the amendment does not seek to repeal any of the existing legislation which imposes duties on the British Railways Board and is contradictory to the aims of the amendment.
The amendment says that it wishes to improve the service to customers and


to reduce costs. Those two aims may not be compatible. It may be that to improve services it will be necessary to increase costs. The amendment seeks to reduce grants, but to improve services to the customer it may be necessary to increase grants. The amendment also refers to staying within cost limits imposed by the Government, and again an increase in the service to passengers may be incompatible with that objective. If the amendment were carried, the British Railways Board could find itself in court at the whim of any of its customers because it was trying to please about six different masters.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all these aims individually have been accepted already, not only by British Rail, but in the main by the trade unions, too. Given that these provisions would be enforceable by law, and given that legal remedies could be imposed to try to improve productivity, one must ask what kind of way is that to try to achieve the desired result? If, in an effort to improve services, negotiations are undertaken with the trade unions, and if a dispute arises, the whole issue will be back in the law courts. That is no way to improve productivity. The way to improve productivity is not by confrontation but by consultation and co-operation. The amendment would mean the death knell of productivity, not an improvement.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I shall be brief, as I recognise that the House has given a thorough airing to this matter, and the Opposition appear to have retired from the field, so there seems little point in prolonging the engagement. However, I should like to take up just two points made from the Opposition Benches.
I take up first the point raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). Quite properly, he drew attention to the very large sums of money that we supply to British Rail. These sums are of proper concern to the House. I think that I shall carry the hon. Member with me when I say that it is perhaps regrettable that whenever we pause to probe and to discuss this matter it is always the same small band of us who sit in this Chamber.
Having said that, however, I know that the hon. Member is aware, as a member of the Select Committee, of the findings

that came out in the Select Committee's report, that the sums that we in Britain supply to our rail network compare very favourably with the sums supplied to other European rail networks, and that, broadly, British Rail gets one-third of all its revenue from the Government, as compared with over half in France and Italy and nearly half in Germany. So, on that basis, British Rail comes out comparatively well. If we do not provide the same sums to our rail network as those that are provided on the Continent, we cannot complain when afterwards people say that we do not get the same services that are obtained in Continental countries.
This brings me, very briefly, to the major point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) about productivity. Since the hon. Member and I speak mainly in nuclear energy debates and therefore do not perhaps get as much opportunity as we would wish to disagree with each other, I should like to take exception to his observations on that point.
There are, of course, always arguments for additional breakthroughs in productivity. But we should not forget that British Rail has made major strides towards improving its productivity over the past 20 or 30 years. Indeed, two-thirds of the posts that existed at the time of nationalisation have disappeared. Some 410,000 jobs have been phased out since the day of nationalisation.
Again, if we compare British Rail with the networks in France and Germany, we find that British Rail has fewer staff per train mile, fewer staff per passenger mile, fewer staff per locomotive, and fewer staff per track mile than exist in either France or Germany. These are impressive comparisons, and we should not lose sight of them.

Mr. Forman: Does the hon. Member agree that in British Rail's own documents there is evidence that there is still room for productivity increases, notably in the administrative sector, in which British Rail has said that it could afford to shed no fewer than 40,000 jobs?

Mr. Cook: I would not disagree with the hon. Member's point. Indeed, it is perhaps interesting that in the Pryke and Dodgson book it was discovered that if


one compared British Rail's administrative staff above the station level, one found that British Rail had twice as many top administrators as any other comparable rail network. I should have thought that that was one area in which we could look for over-manning and consider some reductions in staff.
No one in the railway industry is opposed to greater productivity or reduced manning where that can be achieved. But to achieve that it is not simply a matter of shedding manpower. It is a matter of obtaining the money for investment to get the new equipment. If that money for investment is available, one will achieve greater productivity. The paradox for British Rail is that it is being asked to achieve greater productivity at a time when investment levels are being frozen and the demand and the need for further investment to keep the system going is increasing.
I think that the Opposition were very wise to decide not to divide the House on this amendment. The debate in the other place was a brief debate, of less than 20 minutes, in which only one Back-Bench Member spoke. That was Lord Duncan-Sandys, who described the amendment as a "piety" and a "counsel of perfection". Having described it as a piety, he went into the Division Lobby to vote for it.
I would not wish to appear to be against piety. Indeed, if the newspaper reports are correct, we are shortly coming up to the time when we shall all make pious declarations at least three times a day. But the place for that kind of piety and those kinds of pious statements of objectives belongs to political debate and political manifestos. They do not belong in legislation. By putting platitudes such as this in legislation, we do not enhance the respect for this House, nor do we make it any easier for those who have to carry out the legislation.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, having waited most of the day in anxious anticipation about what would happen in regard to this amendment. Having read it, I could only come to the conclusion that the only reason for it was that a knocking job was to be done on British Rail again. I

am absolutely delighted, as well as amazed, that the debate is not taking that line. I would hope that this debate is the beginning of a new era.
I welcome very much the conciliatory tone of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and his remarks about not only the management of British Rail but the trade unions and various other people involved.
Reference has been made to the volume of figures and information required Sometimes this House has to decide how many people it wants doing paperwork to provide that sort of information. Many people in the railway industry must be doing such non-productive work to satisfy the curiosity of this House or for other reasons. Statistics are best assembled from results.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned two points which are dear to the hearts of those who have been interested in transport, particularly the railways, for some time. First, improving the services is undoubtedly necessary. Successive Governments have been at fault in interfering with the rolling programmes for the improvement of stock and the provision of the necessary framework and hardware.
I hope that the rolling programme agreed by the Government will not easily be interfered with when this sector is used as an economic regulator. All of us who are interested in transport should resist any Treasury approach which entails such interference. Rolling programmes are designed for years and cannot easily be punched into if the customers are to get the best service.
Second, I greatly appreciate what the hon. Member said about higher productivity and the tribute he paid to what has been done. Since 1975, the subsidy to the passenger section has been reduced in real terms and railway staff have been reduced by 12,000, in conjunction with the rail unions. Those are considerable achievements.
Under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Parker, a welcome breath of fresh air has come into British Rail. The day out for old-age pensioners did them a world of good and achieved a great deal in public relations. Many people travelled


that day who had never left their doorsteps before. It was a touch of humanity. Allowing blind people to take their dogs and to have first-class sleeping accommodation is another way of running a humane business. Sir Peter is doing a first-class job and I am sure that he will continue to operate a great enterprise with imagination.
If we are starting a new era and the railways are no longer to be a political punch-bag, we may start appreciating that there is no substitute for good management, a happy work force and a Government sensible and enlightened enough to leave British Rail to get on with its own business.

Mr. Moate: This debate has been characterised by bipartisanship and brevity, and I shall do my best not to spoil that record. I was intrigued, however, by the Under-Secretary's statement that the amendment could be embraced only by those who were in favour of virtue. He then did such a good demolition job on it, as did several of his hon. Friends, that one wondered about his relationship to virtue.
I do not understand why so many hon. Members have had difficulty in accepting even the principles of the amendment. They have argued, on the one hand, that it is unnecessary because the 1962 Act remains in force and, therefore, these injunctions apply to British Rail. We are told, on the other hand, that if these injunctions were accepted they would present serious difficulties. I do not think that these objectives contradict one another. The aim of British Rail must be and is to reduce dependence upon grants and to improve services.
We all welcome the fact that there is a greater consensus today, which arises because in the past few years British Rail has made great strides towards reducing its dependence on grants. It has proclaimed the fact that it has asked for less than it might have had to ask for this year and has at the same time improved many services.
Although we can argue about whether it is right to put statutory exhortations of this kind into an Act of Parliament—we are not making an issue of this tonight—it is clear that the objectives expressed in the amendment should be acceptable to us all. I suspect that, if Sir Peter Parker

were making the decision as to whether an amendment of this kind should be written into legislation, he would have no difficulty in accepting it and saying that this is a welcome statement of objectives for British Rail. It is some of the statements by Sir Peter Parker that allow us to proceed not in any sense of complacency, because I do not think that any of us should underestimate the size of the problems that British Rail faces, but with a general feeling of satisfaction that we are going in the right direction and, because of that, we can start to adopt this bipartisan approach. That is not to say that we have actually reached the goal, because we all know full well that there are many difficulties ahead.
I do not wish to disturb the calm, but we should be deceiving ourselves and those who travel by British Rail if we did not recognise that British Rail is still on something of a tight-rope, that there are financial pressures and that problems could arise from a sudden increase in costs or in fares and the ill will that could be generated by such an increase. Problems might arise with industrial relations. The trade unions have yet to come to terms with the productivity targets that have been set by British Rail and endorsed by the Government.
In response to the report of the Select Committee, the Government have made clear that they endorse the target of reducing manpower employed by the railways by 40,000 by the end of December 1981. We all recognise that that will be a superhuman challenge and that significant manpower reductions have been achieved, thanks to better industrial relations and great co-operation between the unions and management. We all recognise the size of that task, and if we can work towards those goals in an atmosphere of co-operation we shall get a much better railway system in the end.
Better productivity is not simply a way of reducing costs so that higher fares are not passed on to the consumer. Greater productivity is the only way to ensure a good future for the railwayman, that wages are at an adequate level, that jobs are secure and that working conditions are improved. That is why we constantly return to the need for improvements in productivity.
Sir Peter Parker's commentary in the annual report and accounts for 1977 seems to be saying many of the things that we on our side of the House have been saying for the past few years. This is why we gladly welcome some of these statements. Sir Peter Parker says this:
In recent years the railway has been investigated and analysed, written on, and even by some, written off—that decade of doubt is surely over.
I hope and believe that it is. Indeed, in the past few years the House has probably had more extensive debates on the railway system than we had in previous years, and that has contributed to this more healthy atmosphere.
Sir Peter continues:
Of course there are uncertainties and problems ahead. Investment needs for many of our passenger trains for commuters and local services; the urgencies of the London and South East complex which widen far beyond BR".
This was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who rightly emphasised the immense problems which still exist for commuters. The House cannot afford to be complacent about them.
Sir Peter continues:
We have a vital need in the railway industry to match pay awards by productivity deals to pay for them.
That takes us back to the major problem which still exists to which unions and management have to address themselves. I believe that, left alone by the House, they will address themselves to it. and, given the objectives and targets referred to today and set out in the White Paper, we shall be able to achieve a stronger and healthier British Rail, in the long term probably less dependent on subsidies and certainly able to provide a better service to the consumer as well as a better standard of living, greater job security and more job satisfaction to those working in the industry.
I join those who have welcomed the present greater consensus and the progress which has obviously been achieved thus far by British Rail. In some ways I regret that the Lords amendment cannot be put into the statute, but British Rail is working on those lines and in some respects the objectives already exist in the 1962 Act. Even though the amendment

may not go on to the statute book, we feel that the debate which it has stimulated has been immensely helpful to both British Rail and the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12

TRANSFER OF CONTROLLING INTEREST IN FREIGHTLINERS LIMITED

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 11, line 35, leave out
("1st July 1978 ("the transfer date")") and insert ("the appointed day")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We shall consider at the same time Lords amendments nos. 14 to 17 and 19 to 21.

Mr. Horam: These are purely technical amendments affecting the date on which the transfer of Freightliners and the write-down of NFC's capital debt are to take effect. The NFC reconstruction was originally intended to take place on 1st July this year. In the event, the Bill could not be enacted by this date. It would not be appropriate for the transfer of Freightliners or the writing down of a portion of NFC's capital debt, which partly relates to the transfer of Freightliners, to take place retrospectively. It is therefore necessary to amend the date 1st July in clauses 12 and 14.
Clause 21(1) already provides for the Secretary of State to make an order appointing a day for the coming into force of these clauses. Under the terms of these amendments, the transfer of Freightliners and the write-down of debt would then take place on that day, which is expected to be immediately after Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, and only by leave of the House, I shall put the Question on Lords amendments nos. 14 to 17 together.

Lords amendments nos. 14 to 17 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 12, line 22, at end insert—
("(3A) Section 136(2) and (4) of the 1968 Act (transfers in connection with pension


schemes and preservation of pension rights) apply in the same way; and for the purposes of section 136(4)(c), Freightliners Limited is to be treated (despite section 51(5) of that Act, which made it a joint subsidiary both of the British Railways Board and N.F.C.) as having become a subsidiary of the British Railways Board only on the appointed day.")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This also is a technical amendment proposed by the Government to ensure that there is no doubt about the consequences for pensions of the transfer of Freightliners Limited from the National Freight Corporation to the British Railways Board.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put the Question on Lords amendments nos. 19, 20 and 21 together.

Lords amendments nos. 19 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 17

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 16

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 15, line 31, at beginning insert—
(""pension" and "pension scheme" mean the same as in the 1962 Act and")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment provides for the definition of "pension" and pension scheme in section 92(1) of the Transport Act 1962 to apply for the interpretation of the clauses of the Bill—clauses 16 and 17—which provide for funding NFC's historic pension liabilities. These are the

definitions which apply for the interpretation of corresponding provisions of the Railways Act 1974. The amendment is needed to ensure that the funding schemes for the NFC and British Railways Board schemes are on a consistent basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 23 disagreed to.

Clause 22

CITATION AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 18, line 23, leave out ("3") and insert ("4").

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

It being Ten o'clock, the further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

Lords amendments again considered.

Mr. Horam: Clause 4, "Concessionary fare schemes", was added to the Bill to require all county councils which have to prepare and publish annual public passenger transport plans to include in them certain material about travel concession schemes. Clause 22 lays down that the requirements about county transport planning in clauses 1 to 3 do not apply to Scotland, and clause 4 should likewise be disapplied. The amendment secures this.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 25 agreed to.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS ABOUT LORRIES

Lords amendment: no. 26, in page 22, line 6, at end insert—
("Provided that the goods vehicle examiner or the constable in uniform before requiring any person in charge of a goods vehicle to proceed to a place more than one mile from where the requirement is made, shall first be satisfied that there are good reasons to believe that the vehicle is not in a fit and serviceable condition.")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
While superficially reasonable and attractive, the amendment would, if adopted, substantially reduce the effectiveness of the wider powers of control over unroadworthy lorries that the Government are seeking, and would in practice offer greater immunity against the risks of detection of those whose vehicles fail to comply with the law.
The background is that the Government recognise the prime role that lorries will play for many years to come in moving freight around this country. We said as much in the White Paper on transport policy. It follows that our continuing and heavy reliance upon goods vehicles makes it all the more important that we act to deal with the vibration, noise, pollution and—by no means least—the danger on the roads that they can create. It is a very sobering thought that every day of the year an average of four people are killed and another 25 are seriously injured in accidents involving goods vehicles, and the vast majority of them are neither the drivers nor occupants of the lorries concerned.
Annual checks on the mechanical condition of lorries have a vital part to play in ensuring that lorries are adequately maintained and that the risks involved are kept to a minimum. Nevertheless, the fact that as many as one in five of the vehicles presented for the prescribed tests at testing stations still fail to pass them shows how far there is to go in improving standards and how important it is that our system of annual tests is backed by arrangements for effective spot inspections.
The Department's examiners carry out these spot inspections at operators' premises, at the roadside and occasionally at testing stations following the diversion of vehicles. Although not widely used—only 7,327 vehicles were diverted in 1976–77—the power to divert vehicles to testing stations is an important weapon in our armoury of controls. It enables our examiners to carry out inspections when for one reason or another a proper roadside inspection is not feasible.
Under the law as it stands, however, a vehicle cannot be diverted to a testing station by more than a mile. As a result, the number of places on the highways where checkpoints can be set up is very restricted and the proper enforcement of controls—in particular over those potentially dangerous vehicles whose owners are most anxious to avoid detection—is substantially reduced. By extending the limit to five miles, the Government aim to widen the choice of sites and improve enforcement of the law without involving either the deployment of greater resources for enforcement or any substantial increase in the number of vehicles diverted.
I know that there is concern that longer diversions will cause delays and that drivers of diverted vehicles may feel themselves at risk of exceeding their permitted hours, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The arrangements we are making to deal with this are broadly similar to those that apply when a vehicle is diverted to a weighbridge. Under these arrangements, our examiners will be asked to treat sympathetically requests by drivers for their log books to be marked to show the time when they are diverted to testing stations and the time when the subsequent inspections there are completed. This will provide evidence for the enforcement authorities, which have agreed that circumstances beyond the control of drivers will be taken into account in deciding whether there has been any infringement of the rules on drivers' hours.
Clearly, the legal and licensing authorities have a certain discretion, and it is not possible to bind them by what I am saying about the law. I believe, however, that our arrangement, coupled with Lords amendment no. 9 dealing with the defences against infringement of EEC


rules—which we agreed earlier—should in practice remove any real basis for concern.
What has worried some of our critics is that longer diversions will involve hauliers in expense and difficulties. For their part, the Government recognise that some costs and inconvenience are inevitable, just as they are under the law as it stands. What we do not accept is that they will be onerous for the individual operator, still less for the industry as a whole, particularly when they are set against the deaths, injuries, sorrow and misery that accidents can entail.
On Report I assured the House that the new powers of diversion would be used with discretion and that the guiding principle would be to require extended diversions only where this was necessary because of conditions of weather or visibility or because of the nature of the examination thought necessary. Moreover, I undertook that the House would be the first to be told if ever it were proposed to depart from that principle. Essentially, similar sentiments have been conveyed to the Lords by Baroness Stedman.
A draft of the guidance note to be issued to examiners on the use of the new power has now been prepared and copies have been placed in the Library. It puts flesh on the principles that I specified on Report. It also makes it perfectly clear that vehicles will not be sent an extended diversions on a purely random basis but, in accordance with the principles I specified, will be sent only where a roadside check on the vehicle will not suffice. Hon. Members will note in particular paragraph 8, which deals with the arrangements I have already described for annotating the log books of drivers whose vehicles are diverted.
The circumstances in which a diversion may prove necessary in the interests of road safety are so varied that detailed guidance of this kind is the only sensible way to proceed. To seek to encompass in a brief formula in the statute the conditions under which the Powers should be used inevitably runs the risk of so fettering the discretion of our examiners that the powers become practically valueless. This is our fear. This is precisely

the trap into which the Lords amendment falls.
By requiring that a constable or examiner must be reasonably satisfied as to the fitness or otherwise of a vehicle before diverting it, the amendment, in effect, requires him to carry out a fairly careful inspection at the roadside. If he fails to do so and the vehicle is subsequently found not to be defective, he will clearly be at risk of proceedings. Yet cold, wet, foggy or icy conditions or the lack of technical equipment available at a testing station may rule out an adequate roadside inspection. These may, however, be the very conditions in which a defective vehicle poses the greatest risk to other road users and to the general public.
The Government believe that the most effective way forward is to legislate in the way provided for in the Bill. We have given undertakings as to the use of the powers and have made available a draft of the guidance to be given to our examiners. To amend schedule 3 in the manner proposed by the Lords could not fail to reduce the effectiveness of the provisions and negate this attempt to improve road safety.

Mr. Fry: It is a pity that in his opening remarks the Minister was somewhat scathing about the record of commercial vehicles. Rather more accidents take place per kilometre movement involving private cars than there are accidents involving lorries. Certainly the number of cars which fail the MoT test—a far less sophisticated affair than that for lorries—is in excess of the number of lorries failing the test. It is only fair to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks in context.
Those who have been following the Transport Bill through all its stages will be aware of the concern felt by the road haulage industry over the provisions of clause 8 and schedule 3, increasing from one to five miles the distance by which commercial vehicles can be diverted. I hope the Minister will agree that as originally proposed considerable extra difficulties would have been imposed on the industry, which already feels itself to be hard pressed. This is not the occasion to debate at length the problems of the industry, operating either on its own account or for hire and reward. Simply listing some of the problems which it


has experienced in the past two or three years will serve to show why it was concerned over what appeared to be another problem.
Not only have operators the difficulties of the drivers' hours that are being imposed on them. They have the problem of the extra fuel duty, some of which was removed from private cars but not from commercial vehicles. They have the problems of inflation on the price of new vehicles, virtually making it impossible for many small hauliers to replace their vehicles. They have had the wages policies imposed by the central Government, and when they have had their arms twisted by the unions some of them have been blacklisted because they gave in to their demands.
They have also been inundated by a mass of paperwork, shortly to be increased again over the regulation on drivers' hours. They have also had the vexed question of the tachograph, with the Government being unable to make up their minds whether to dance the European waltz on his issue. Last but not least, they have suffered very considerably from the industrial recession, which has meant a loss of traffic and severe competition, particularly at the margin. We are therefore not talking about an industry which has had an easy time. One needs to mention these things in order to put the debate into its proper context.
When the Bill was originally drafted, many people saw it as yet another difficulty from a Government who had hitherto shown remarkably little understanding of the problems of the road haulage industry. Throughout the Bill's various stages, the Opposition have effectively presented the industry's case and, together with the representations of the trade associations, have made the Department think again. I am glad to think that we have now arrived at a somewhat happier position than we were in on Second Reading.
At long last the Government have to some extent come to understand the difficulties of the industry. In dealing with the industry, however, they have made difficulties for themselves. In Committee various assurances and undertakings were given, but it has taken a rather long time for those undertakings to be put into concrete form. Originally an amendment

was hammered out between the industry and officials of the Department, only to be dropped at a later stage. The one advantage of that amendment was that it would have given a safeguard to the industry within the provisions of the Bill rather than a series of notes of guidance which are not mentioned in the Bill. That would have been an important safeguard.
Following further negotiations behind the scenes, we understood that the notes of guidance to examiners would be issued. There again, however, there appears to have been an unfortunate delay in producing even the draft notes of guidance. It was not until the middle of July, when the Bill was in Committee in the Lords, that the notes of guidance suddenly and miraculously appeared.
It was not surprising that my noble Friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth felt it necessary to table this amendment, because he felt, rightly, that up to that moment the matter had not been properly attended to. Whether we should press the amendment or accept the Government's request to disagree with it depends on two separate points. The first is whether there should be any specific reference in the Bill to the degree of protection that operators whose vehicles are likely to be diverted are to receive. There is, I think, general agreement that those operators need some such protection. Many of us think that it should be embodied in the Bill.
The other point relates to the notes of guidance. Are these notes of guidance, which are in draft form, to remain substantially unchanged? Are they to be agreed with the main representatives of the haulage industry? On these two questions will depend the acceptability of the notes of guidance.
For example, on the question of whether the guidance notes are satisfactory, it is only recently that one has been able to obtain a copy. It was difficult to discuss the matter and try to understand the Government's point of view without having the notes before us. It is only in the last two or three days that I have been able to read them. None the less, having read them very carefully, I believe that it is very important to pick out one or two things which detract from them, or at least, require further explanation.
10.15 p.m.
I refer the Under-Secretary to page 2 of the notes—paragraph 6(1)(b), lines 3, 4 and 5, giving the reasons for diversion, showing that
the examination cannot be adequately carried out either at the point of checking or someplace nearer than the proposed destination of the diversion.
These words have caused a little confusion. After that, the notes go on to say:
the need for a roller brake test or metered smoke test are examples of the sort of factors which justify diversion to a testing station.
It was this reference to a metered smoke test which caused some confusion in the other place. It was quite clearly pointed out by Lord Lucas of Chilworth that there was no need for a metred smoke test to take place anywhere else than at the roadside. The instrument is portable.
Secondly and more devastatingly, Lord Lucas pointed out that that test was not particularly apt in any case. He was rather surprised that the notes that the Government have prepared actually contained a reference to this smoke test. Surely the industrty, therefore, is entitled to ask whether the Department is now accepting the use of this meter as a standard procedure. Lord Lucas did not receive an answer to his question. I hope that I shall be luckier this evening. Because this specific test was inserted into the notes, many people have been confused. My personal view is that it would have been better to leave that passage out of the notes because they were reasonably clear beforehand.
In addition, there is a feeling that the Government and the Department do not always fully take note of the latest developments over portable weighing devices, for example. One of the reasons for diversion is that the essential task cannot be done at the roadside. The reason why the industry rejects and resents unnecessary diversion is that very often this adds to the overheads and the problems of the scheduling of deliveries. Therefore, any device that will assist a higher degree of control at the roadside should surely be welcomed by Government, the public and the haulage industry alike.
I have been supplied with some very interesting information about a new

weighing control system—a static system known as the 8023 type 10T. It is somewhat surprising that here we have the Government indulging in further legislation, diverting vehicles further and further from the road but, knowing about this system, apparently have not yet, five years after having been first informed, gone into any kind of evaluation of it. I know that this is a technical point, but we are dealing with technical matters controlling the safety of road vehicles. If the Department expects to have the full understanding and co-operation of the industry, it should keep abreast of technical developments and try to understand and minimise the delays that may result from over-anxious and overenthusiastic action.
My third point refers to a matter to which the Under-Secretary has referred. I should like to read note 8 from the Department's guidance:
Finally, in view of the significance for drivers' hours of the time spent in diversions, examiners are asked to treat sympathetically requests for endorsement of log books to show the time of diversion and the time when the eventual inspection has been completed.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said on this point. There is concern at the fact that drivers can find themselves very much out of their way and delayed for a considerable period of time. With the EEC regulations about to come into force, those drivers felt themselves vulnerable.
I note what the Minister said earlier, but I hope he will confirm that the notes which he has supplied on Lords amendment no. 9 clearly apply in this context. I remind him of what note 2 says:
The clause provides that a person shall not be liable to be convicted for contravention of the rules if, as the driver, his contravention was due to unavoidable delay in completing a journey due to unforeseen circumstances.
I hope that that fully covers the occasion when a driver is diverted and cannot foresee the diversion. I hope that in those circumstances there is no question of that driver being prosecuted. It is important to establish this. If the Minister can confirm it, I am sure that many members of the Transport and General Workers' Union will be very pleased.
There is another point—namely, that there shall be no contravention of the rules if, when an employer is charged with causing or permitting his driver to


breach the rules, the breach arises because the driver has carried out periods of driving or duty otherwise than in his employment of which the employer was not aware or could not reasonably have become aware. One hopes that that argument applies.
I should like to sum up the attitude of the Opposition to this amendment. We feel that in the circumstances the Government have at long last arrived at the right point. Subject to satisfactory answers to the points which I have rut forward, and subject to an assurance that the draft will remain substantially as it is and that it has the agreement of the industry, we feel that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to a vote
However, we believe that it was essential to table this amendment to enable the Government fully to explain their point of view. We should like to have seen something undertaken within the provisions of the Bill, but, as the Minister knows, we are reasonable men and we intend to delay the Bill no further. Along with the industry we shall be vigilant to see that the notes of guidance put into practice what the Government have said and that they reinforce the tone of the assurances which they have given.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was rather less than fair. He presented the Conservative Party as the white knight dashing around in this increasing jungle of legislation.
The hon. Member began his speech by giving the House a synopsis of the kind of legislation which; road hauliers—I think that he was talking of his friends in the private sector rather than those in the nationalised industry—have had to endure. If, however, he persists in making these speeches, he should be reminded, as he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that the share of guilt for the increasing complexity of legislation must be shared by the two Front Bench spokesmen since they are both in favour of the Common Market and are equally guilty. For the hon. Gentleman to present his party as the only saviour which will keep us from excessive legislation takes a bit of stomaching.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's view about the Government's change of

heart was unfair to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman gave no credence to any view but his own. I invite him to re-read the report of our Committee proceedings, because some of us, including myself, said that this was unacceptable. The Under-Secretary made some telling points and almost convinced himself at one point that we needed legislation to check on the safety of lorries, and he put up a good case for being even tougher.
The nub of the argument is that in legislation on the checking of vehicles we must seek to do anything we can to prevent accidents. These large lorries take some stopping and can do immense damage. We must make sure that our accident record is as good as possible while not visiting on the good the need to be diverted and messed about. We must also ensure that drivers who, having done a fair day's work, have to have their vehicles checked and found to be safe do not then have to travel many miles before being able to get their heads down in readiness for the next day's work. We have sufficient expertise to carry out comprehensive tests in convenient laybys without diverting vehicles.
The Minister has proposed a compromise. The hon. Member for Wellingborough spoke about the assurances that he would have to be given before he would agree not to press the amendment, but I bet that his mind is already made up. His friends in the road transport industry should note that, while the hon. Gentleman speaks in these strident tones, there are only three Conservative Members in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a lot of hot air.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary listened to the representations from both sides of the Committee. We did not have to twist his arm, because he recognised the relevance of our arguments and came up with the proposal that, when the examinations are made, notes of guidance will have been given and people whose vehicles fall into the category of perhaps or perhaps not having something wrong with them will not be pursued without good reason. There is no question of the notes of guidance being withdrawn. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will give an assurance that they will be issued. It would have been more gracious of the hon. Member for Wellingborough if he had not adopted such a hectoring tone


but had thanked the Under-Secretary for the care that he has taken.
We shall have to wait to see how many cases are being diverted and how many proceedings will ensue. It is as well that someone should say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that certainly those of us with close connections with the industry through the Transport and General Workers' Union do not want to see dangerous vehicles on our roads. We want to see the improving standard of road vehicles maintained.
We believe that it is technologically impossible to do roadside checks without causing enormous difficulties. The Minister's proposal is a fair compromise. I thank him for the care he has taken and I regret that the hon. Member for Wellingborough did not have the grace to do the same.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Horam: I am almost overwhelmed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) at the end of a long and occasionally difficult relationship through 20 sittings on the Bill. We have come to a harmonious understanding late in the day, but I am grateful that that has happened. I know of my hon. Friend's real concern for lorry drivers. He is a fellow member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. He has spoken on numerous occasions on these matters and I am glad that in the end we have been able to satisfy him.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) sought a specific assurance on the guidance that we are putting in our notes. I shall make a more thorough check with the police. I understand that on an informal basis the police will be happy with the arrangements that are being made. Until I obtain a formal agreement from them, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact assurance that he seeks, I undertake to obtain a formal agreement as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about consultation and made some fair remarks about emitted smoke and portable weighbridges. We shall take into account what he said during the debate. There will be full consulation with the industry. That has not yet taken place. The industry has not seen the notes that the hon. Gentleman has seen. The notes are not in their final form, and we shall take

into account all that the industry may say. We wish to reach a harmonious conclusion with the industry.
It is in the industry's best interests that sensible measures should be adopted. If the public are not satisfied that we have done our best, even more draconian measures may be forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 22, line 47, at end insert—
("Provided that such fees shall not exceed those prescribed for annual testing.")

Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government have made clear throughout that the level of fees that we have in mind to prescribe for payment when a lorry is required to be brought to a testing station for clearance of a prohibition on its use would be in line with those charged when a goods vehicle is presented for its annual test. We had hoped to overcome our differences in the Lords by bringing forward a Government amendment having a similar effect to their own. Unfortunately, however, we ran into legal objections and it did not prove possible in the time available to find a formula to bridge the gap.
Essentially the problem is to avoid casting doubt on the principle that a fee for any service, unlike a tax or penalty, is quantified by reference to the cost of providing the service—I am sure that that will find an echo in Opposition and Government ranks—and at the same time to overcome the difficulty that not all goods vehicles that can be subject to prohibition notices are subject to the annual heavy goods vehicle test. Some of them do not undergo the test. Nevertheless, the Government are sympathetic towards those who are concerned that the fees should not contain a penal element and I am pleased to say that what I believe to be an acceptable solution has now been found.
In effect, the second Government amendment places on the Secretary of State a clear obligation to have regard to the level of fees charged for the annual testing of goods vehicles yet at the same time leaves it open to Parliament to object and, if necessary, debate the fees actually prescribed when a statutory


instrument is laid. To the best of our belief, the amendment rules out there being a penal level of fees that is unrelated to cost being imposed on the industry. That reflects our intention that the cost of the examination should be reflected, no more and no less.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should have said that the two Government amendments in lieu are being discussed with the Lords amendment with which the Government have moved to disagree.

Mr. Fry: It is pleasant to be talking about the final amendments in a degree of concord with the Under-Secretary of State. We have not benefited tonight from the match-making efforts of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Nevertheless, I think we can say that on this amendment we have reached a happy conclusion. The noble Lord who moved this amendment in the other place had a few words with me about it. He felt that if we could get this kind of assurance he would be perfectly happy. Therefore, I pay respect to the Minister for having brought this minor matter to a conclusion and, indeed, on this somewhat lengthier Transport Bill than many of us expected when we set out on it some months ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof: In page 22, line 46, after "and", insert—
(a)
In page 22, line 47, at end insert—
(b) the Secretary of State shall ensure that the scales and rates prescribed for the purposes of this subsection are reasonably comparable with the fees charged under section 45(6) of this Act in respect of the periodic examination of goods vehicles".—[Mr. Horam.]

Lords amendment no. 28 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Norman Fowler, Mr. Horam, Mr. Marks, Mr. Moate and Mr. Snape; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Horam.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ROAD TRANSPORT (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY RULES)

10.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.
I understand that it is generally agreed that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.
It was said by Lord Palmerston of the Schleswig-Holstein question that there were only three men who ever understood it: One was Prince Albert, who was dead; the second was a German professor, who was mad; and he was the third, and he had forgotten all about it. I am tempted, if this is not presumptuous, to cast myself in the role of Lord Palmerston this evening, reluctant only because I should have to assign to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) the role of the mad professor.
It is not proper for Ministers to confess ignorance at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I may profess a qualified ignorance, which implies a qualified knowledge. These regulations are exceedingly complex. Indeed, I have much sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) earlier this evening when he referred to the need to have consultants to unravel the complexities of the law. I think that is right. Were it not for the need to put a number of matters on the record tonight, I would not detain the House with a long speech. Nevertheless, I do not intend to do so. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough has a number of questions to ask—that would be fully understood—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do his very best to answer them in due course.
As the House knows, we are concerned primarily with EEC regulation 543 of


1969 and aspects of it. There are three aspects: first, the extent to which it is applicable to the United Kingdom following the lengthy and laborious negotiations which were effectively completed at the Council on 27th October last and debated in the House on 1st February; secondly, the consequences for existing United Kingdom legislation, which is part of our debate tonight; and, thirdly, the question of the exemptions which we have been able to secure as a result of our discussions with the Commission. The first of these points having already been dealt with, we are concerned with the consequences for existing United Kingdom legislation and with the exemptions.
The harmonisation regulations are designed to make detailed amendments to the already complicated code in the Transport Act 1968, which has already been amended by subsequent orders and Acts. But these changes are necessary to fit in with the EEC regulation, which now applies to much of our domestic traffic. The overall aim, which I am confident these regulations will achieve, is to make matters simpler for drivers and operators. These two sets of regulations will, I hope, bring to an end a period of unique uncertainty for the British road transport industry. I pay tribute to the industry for the way in which it has managed through this period.
At the beginning of the year, the European Community rules which control the hours and rest periods of goods and passenger vehicle drivers and which had applied to our international traffic since April 1973 came into force for domestic traffic in this country.
Limits on the number of hours drivers may remain on duty, or drive, have been imposed here by statute for a number of years. The most recent comprehensive enactment was the Transport Act 1968. The EEC regulation represents no new departure of principle. But the terms of the EEC rules are—not surprisingly—rather different from our own earlier controls.
Regulation no. 543/69 was agreed by the original six members of the Community in 1969. The United Kingdom had no part in formulating the regulation—if it had, circumstances might have

been different—but we accepted it on accession to the Community. Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, it has applied to United Kingdom vehicles engaged on internaional journeys since April 1973. However, for purely domestic traffic, the treaty provided that it should not become effective until 1st January 1976. The Commission was given powers to defer this date up to but not beyond the end of 1977—for two years—if it could be proved that implementation would have adverse effects.
The Government were able to persuade the Commission to use these powers, and we secured a series of deferments up to the end of last year. During this time, following difficult negotiations at official level and finally in the Council of Ministers in October last year—I refer to the negotiations which were completed on 27th October—we managed to secure a number of modifications to the regulation itself. The most important of these has enabled us to phase in the more restrictive provisions over a three-year transitional period.
We gave statutory force to those phasing provisions in regulations, which were debated in the House on 1st February. Therefore, although the EEC rules came into force for most domestic traffic in this country from the beginning of 1978, their full impact will not be felt until 1st January 1981. We have done as well as we could in these difficult circumstances.
The purpose of the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978 is to make our existing national law compatible with the EEC rules. This is inescapable for several reasons.
As I said earlier, the EEC regulation effectively replaced the corresponding provisions of the 1968 Act for all the vehicles within its scope. But the way in which the two codes overlap at present is untidy and to that extent unsatisfactory.
It has been put to me in the strongest terms that this calls for the simple remedy of repealing the 1968 Act provision in the case of drivers subject to the EEC rules. An Opposition amendment to this effect was put down in Committee on the current Transport Bill but was rejected by the House.
I have given serious thought to this matter, particularly in the light of comments made by the employers when the draft harmonisation regulations were circulated for consultation, but I have decided that it would be wrong to repeal these provisions, for two main reasons. The existence of limits on duty and spreadover provide an important protection for drivers. This protection has been enjoyed for a number of years, and there is no justification for removing it now. In addition, under the terms of the amending EEC regulation which provided for the phased introduction of the EEC rules in this country, it was expressly stipulated that phased introduction of the EEC rules should in no way cause any regression, by comparison with what had already been achieved by individual member States—and this was much—in terms of social protection.
I regard those two considerations as important and overriding, and I have therefore decided that the 1968 duty limits should be kept alongside the EEC rules. The harmonisation regulations make this quite clear and make adjustments to the relevant 1968 provisions so that they are compatible with the EEC rules.
The second reason for the harmonisation regulations is to cater for drivers who switch between different types of work. Though in practice most drivers will not be affected, since their work patterns are stable, it is necessary to make provision for those who work for part of their time under the EEC rules and for part of their time outside their scope. Drivers who are not covered by the EEC rules will remain, as before, subject to the Transport Act.
The third reason for these regulations is to deal with international work. Once the phasing-in modifications have been completed, the EEC rules will be the same for both international and national work. Nevertheless, the practice of ignoring the 1968 limits for international work is now well established and I have decided, therefore, that it would be unnecessary and in no one's interest to change practices in this area now. In view of this, the harmonisation regulations have been drafted to preserve the position of international drivers as far as posible.
Finally on these regulations, I recognise that in an area such as this it is not

realistic to expect every individual driver or employer to try to understand the statutory regulations. If we do not do so in the House, how can we expect others readily to do so? My Department is therefore preparing a comprehensive guide—one might call it a layman's guide—which will be issued when the regulations come into force. I hope that this will enable all those concerned to understand as fully and precisely as possible the rules which apply to their own individual case. If, from experience, this can be improved, we shall do our very best to do so, and I hope that hon. Members who have any comments to make on the guide or who have any comments passed to them will let me have them.
I turn briefly to the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemption) Regulations. This is the second group of regulations that we are cosidering this evening. The purpose of the regulations, which are made under section 2 of the European Communities Act, is to give statutory effect to certain exemptions from the EEC rules which have been agreed with the European Commission. In addition to exemptions from the drivers' hours rules, the regulations also cover certain associated exemptions from the tachograph regulation, and that is regulation 1463/70. As the House will know, the regulation is currently the subject of proceedings before the European Court, and in those circumstances I should prefer not to refer to it in more detail.
The power to obtain exemptions or derogations is set out in article 14a of EEC regulation 543/69 which I have been discussing, and the article sets out specific and prescribed exemptions. Under the terms of article 14a, certain of the exemptions may be implemented after consultation with the Commission, whilst others require specific authorisation from the Commission. Our approach to exemptions has been to seek the maximum permitted by the article under both categories. Our negotiations with the Commission were largely successful and, subject to certain provisions with regard to the transport of milk, we have managed to secure all that was possible.
As I said at the beginning, the regulations before the House today represent collectively the end of a unique period of uncertainty for the transport industry.


When regulation 543/69 came into force in January, the last-minute decisions from the Commission on the transitional modifications, together with the need to act quickly to implement them, left no time to tidy up the loose ends we are now considering.
In introducing the EEC rules at that time, I announced that there would be a six-month running-in period for the enforcement of the rules to enable the industry to adjust. I also made clear on another occasion that I should not want anybody to change operating practices in respect of those vehicles and purposes for which derogation or exemption from the EEC rules was possible. Apart from the extension in connection with the 450-km. daily distance limits, the running-in period of enforcement is now formally over and it is particularly important that the law should be clear and that the industry should be allowed to settle down.
Both sets of regulations remove outstanding uncertainty. I am sure that everyone will agree that, whatever criticisms may be levelled at them in detail, the prospect of a further period of confusion is not something which any of us could want.

Mr. John Evans: My right hon. Friend refers to the necessity of avoiding confusion. I think that we all fully agree with him. He has said that he has sought the maximum possible exemptions, and there has been exemption concerning minibuses or minicoaches and the installation of the tachograph. Does the lack of necessity for a tachograph to be fitted in a minicoach apply to journeys in this country only or does it include journeys on the Continent?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a distinction here between journeys within the United Kingdom and journeys on the Continent. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point. I think that there have been some misunderstandings about the extent to which the law has lately been changed and the extent to which the law was not enforced for Continental journeys in the past. If there is some other point that my hon. Friend has in mind which I have missed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary will refer to it in his winding-up speech.
I think that we have succeeded in obtaining, with one possible exception, as many exemptions as were possible.
I say sincerely that we have appreciated the very close consultation that we have had with the industry throughout this period. It may not have been easy for us from time to time, but it was far more difficult for the industry, both in dealing with the uncertainty and in giving advice of a kind which was relevant and which would be effective. Although I cannot say that the industry has in all respects been satisfied or pleased, I can for my own part say that I am grateful to the industry for the speed and consideration with which those concerned have reacted to the problems that we placed before them in very difficult circumstances.
I said at the beginning that we inherited regulation no. 543/69 when we became members of the Community. It was not renegotiated at that time, nor was it subject to renegotiation before the referendum. This was our choice, and I do not think that we can honestly complain to others about it. It is a price that we paid—if one cares to put it that way—for our membership. Whether our membership is right or wrong, that is the reality which we have faced.
As full members of the Community, however, we are wholly entitled to seek to change the regulations in due course. That has always been by view. It is the view which we must have as members of the Community. It would be unrealistic to believe that we can do so quickly or in the near future. For one thing, I think that there was scepticism about our intention of implementing the regulation, and I think that we must probably wait until the end of the period of three years before our good faith has been wholly demonstrated to the satisfaction of others. But I certainly believe that when the regulation is fully implemented we should seek every opportunity to change it, if that is right.
As far as I am concerned, I shall certainly remain vigilant about the prospect of change, and I shall seek to renegotiate at the right time, both in the proper interests of this country and in the spirit of the Community.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I do not know how far the Secretary of


State wants to identify himself with the late Lord Palmerston. Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that when Lord Palmerston sired an illegitimate child at the age of 80 it was just before a General Election, and the Opposition kept it quiet because they were terrified that he would sweep the country. He was obviously a very colourful character, who said a great many things which could mean different things to different people.
However, I should like first to declare an indirect interest in this matter. I was delighted that the Secretary of State started his remarks with an admission of its complexity. There can be very few hon. Members or other people who can consider themselves totally familiar with all the intricacies of these regulations. It is hardly surprising that Mr. lain Sherriff. the editor of Commercial Motor, had this to say:
Members of the House of Lords and Commons will demonstrate an unusual level of comprehension if they fully understand the draft regulations on drivers' hours which await their approval. If the Parliamentarians cannot understand them, what chance the average operator, traffic clerk or driver?
That is quite true.
We have not stayed here late simply to congratulate the Secretary of State on his grasp of the intricacies of the regulations or to praise him for obtaining a three-year period of implementation—or even for the exemptions he has provided under his powers of derogation. These were the very minimum needed to bring some order into a chaotic situation.
If anyone doubts that it has been a chaotic situation, I would ask him to consider that separate regulations, or continuations of these regulations, apply in different ways to the following: first, international journeys; second, journeys which are part international and part national; third, national journeys which are totally subject to regulation 543: fourth, national journeys which are partly subject to regulation 543; fifth, national journeys which are totally outside regulation 543; and sixth, national journeys which relate to passenger rather than commercial vehicle movements. Anyone who doubted the complexity of the matter should now have second thoughts. If anyone can put the two sets of regulations into plain English, I

am sure that the Secretary of State would like him to prepare the handbook which is to be produced.
It is not surprising that the matter is complicated, because many Commission documents can raise a smile. For example, the Commission's opinion, dated 30th June 1978, which comments on the exemptions in the Community regulations, says:
In respect of the exemption from Regulation (EEC) No. 1463/70 on vehicles undergoing local road tests for purposes of repair or maintenance, the Commission is of opinion that these vehicles must be fitted with recording equipment (tachograph) if they are registered after 1st January 1976. However, since these vehicles are driven during the test by driver mechanics who do not habitually drive them, it does not seem reasonable to require them to operate the recording equipment.
In other words, one must go to the bother of fitting a tachograph, but then it need not be used. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will take that line in his dealings with the EEC over this difficult matter.
The present difficulties have been exacerbated by some other intriguing aspects of this complicated story. At the end of the Department's supplementary note on the regulations, there is a list of no fewer than 27 Acts, regulations, orders, decisions and opinions relating to drivers' hours and records. Furthermore, in an attempt to be helpful, the Department concerned finds it necessary to offer yet further advice, explanations and instructions, so that documents are pouring upon the industry at a rate comparable only to Government promises and policy statements before a General Election. The poor haulier is not finding it easy to keep up with the enormous amount that he has to read, absorb and act upon. At the same time he is trying to earn a living.
There is a further rather annoying point. If I am wrong about this I shall gladly withdraw it, but I have been informed that the Department has considerably reshuffled the personnel responsible for dealing with drivers' hours. This caused at least one bus operator to wonder when talking to the Department's officials who was guiding whom through the labyrinth of the regulations.
These extra factors would all be laughable if we were dealing with some kind of farce lampooning bureaucracy, but we


are talking about one of the country's essential industries. The transport industry, in its efforts to cope with these regulations, has at times felt that it has been having a nightmare. That is bad enough for a large concern that can afford to take on a skilled, perhaps technical, staff to try to unravel the regulations and give advice, or for the firm that can easily take the excellent advice proffered by the trade associations. It will be well nigh impossible for the owner driver, who still constitutes a considerable part of the haulage industry in this country, to keep within the regulations without breaking one or other of them.
I accept that the Secretary of State inherited this very difficult situation. I cannot think of anybody who would want to be responsible for having created it. Therefore, all of us should have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman for having to deal with it. I accept that he has spent much time trying to be helpful to the industry in some of the changes that he has tried to bring about. I do not think that this is the time to discuss the disadvantages or advantages of EEC membership. The proper course is to assess the present position regarding the regulations and to see how we can progress from here.
I shall devote most of my speech to asking a series of questions that I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer in due course, if not tonight. I turn first to the order on harmonisation. No fewer than 27 different pieces of legislation will clearly present a great mass of detail for the haulage operator. I should have thought that this made it quite clear that some degree of codification and consolidation was needed. There are difficulties about that because EEC law is separate from ours. I hope that something constructive will happen soon to make life simpler for the operators, even if it is only that a booklet is issued and then the authorities stay silent for a while so that operators can become accustomed to the mass of detail which has been issued already, and it should not be frequently altered as time passes.
I was fascinated to read what the Government spokesman—or should I say "spokeswoman"?—in the other place, Baroness Stedman, said:

from the point of view of the individual driver or operator, the effect of the regulations will be relatively straightforward.
I do not know whether that means that it will drive him straight into bankruptcy or into the madhouse, but I should have thought that the regulations were much too complicated for such a person readily to understand. She went on to say:
the Department of Transport will be issuing comprehensive guidance…when the regulations are made."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26th July 1978; Vol. 395, c. 894.]
I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that tonight. Comprehensive guidance will no doubt be needed. This single work of reference will be of great advantage to all concerned.
My second point on harmonisation goes back to the point that the Secretary of State made about removing the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his Department, and, indeed, almost everybody else up until the hour of midnight in relation to the original coming into force of these regulations, was under the impression that section 96 no longer applied. What upset many people in the industry was the feeling that they had been led up the garden path. I am not blaming the Secretary of State, because these people were proffered certain advice and felt that with section 96 removed they would be able to cope with some of the more adverse effects of EEC Council regulation No. 543. Now they are worried that they are to be subject to the effects of both. The Secretary of State has had a letter in very strong terms from the British Association of Removers on this point. The letter was dated 21st July.
However, I note what the Secretary of State said about why he cannot accept the removal of section 96, and I put this question to him. Does he honestly think that if he had proceeded along that line lorry drivers would suddenly have been worked like slaves, leading terrible lives, with employers taking tremendous advantage of it? I cannot believe that, with champions such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) and with the might of the Transport and General Workers' Union behind him, the lorry driver would have had anything to fear on that score.
Before the Secretary of State and the Government came to their decision not to


remove the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act, did they have any discussions with the Transport and General Workers' Union? What were the views of the union, and was any pressure applied by it? Even after listening to the right hon. Gentleman tonight, I feel that very little damage would have been caused by the removal of this dual responsibility in respect of driving hours and the duty day. That view is heavily reinforced by the Road Haulage Association, which made clear in a letter to me that it thought that this was the ideal time to simplify the legislation by divorcing the two parts, EEC regulation 543 and the 1968 Act, from each other.
Through the Secretary of State's decision and his intention to take no action in relation to international movements, we seem to have left ourselves in a very odd situation. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to be completely consistent, he would have applied section 96 to international movements. He ought at least to have tried to put all transport movements on all fours. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about that.
I draw attention now to page 5 of the harmonisation regulations, where one finds perhaps the most important point of detail which should be put to the Government. Paragraph (8)(iii)(a) of regulation 4—anybody listening will at once realise how complicated the whole thing is—refers to what is, in effect, the institution of the rolling week. It defines a working week as
any period of seven consecutive days"—
This change will cause considerable problems not only for the haulage industry but for passenger transport as well, the bus and long-distance coach sector.
Previously, the only way to maintain complicated commercial vehicle schedules and passenger journeys, especially over the busiest parts of the year, was to use the seven-day fixed week. It enabled one to have a spread-over of duties which seemed to work satisfactorily and it gave a flexibility of operation which was for the benefit of the consumer, the manufacturer and the traveller. Indeed, many of the seaside excursions so beloved by our constituents will become much more expensive, or even impossible, if we

move towards the concept of the rolling week. I believe that the new definition—
any period of seven consecutive days
will not only prove expensive but may lead to a cut-back in some of the services which are at present enjoyed.
Are the Government aware of the seriousness of the problem? Do they understand how costly will be the outcome? The costs will be transferred straight away to the users of transport and, as I have already said, some bus operations may well have to be reduced.
It has been said that the rolling week means that there are 365 rolling weeks in a year, since each day starts a seven-day period. In a leap year there are 366 days. That indicates how difficult it is to arrange new schedules and to arrange rotas. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging words from the Under-Secretary on that.

Mr. John Ellis: Now that the hon. Gentleman has said all that about the complexities—365 days in a year and 366 in a leap year—does he consider it practicable or possible that we can do what is proposed? He seems to have made out a case that it is impossible to work any kind of logical system. Yet we are stuck with the Common Market again. Is it possible to get out of it?

Mr. Fry: I never know whether the hon. Gentleman's comments on the subject are intended to be helpful or totally destructive. I sometimes think that the union he represents takes a line on the EEC regulations that it wants them to be almost impossible so that the whole thing will be discredited. I do not know whether that is true, but it is my impression.
I was heartened by what the Secretary of State said about future negotiations. I believe that we shall have a period of great difficulty. It may be necessary to go back earlier than the end of the three-year period purely because of the problems that arise from the rolling week. It is all very well saying that we shall be good Europeans at a time when we are being hauled before the European Court. That is a problem that the Secretary of State will have to overcome.
In the exemption regulations there are some matters of rather more detail to


which I should like to refer quickly. The first relates to the exemption for vehicles constructed to carry not more than 15 persons, including the driver. It is felt, particularly by many of the smaller bus operators, that this could constitute very serious competition. The great mass of private operators—I am not talking about the National Bus Company—make their profit by running excursions to the seaside, the theatre and a whole range of events. If by making this exemption we bring about a rash of small vehicles, that could be dangerous for the long-term viability of those operators. Secondly, I understand from the accident statistics that more people are liable to be injured than would be injured if they were carried in the more traditional coach.
The industry asks why the figure of 15 was plucked from the air and on what basis it was agreed. Further, it makes the important point that here we have an example of what appears to be a clear distinction between passenger movement and goods movement. The industry finds this surprising because hitherto in the negotiations on the regulations there has not been the acceptance that there has been traditionally in this country that we need a different set of regulations for passenger and commercial vehicles.
Therefore, there is a gleam of light. If we have this concession over the 15 seats, is there any hope of our persuading the EEC that we have been more sensible all along in having different sets of regulations for two kinds of vehicles?
While I am on the subject of passenger transport, may I refer to a matter that will cause considerable concern—the keeping of the records that will be required under the regulations. I know that the Department is already trying to be helpful. It is producing a somewhat simplified form. There is, however, a world of difference between a lorry which is driven by one driver perhaps most of the year and a bus, which can have perhaps three or four drivers in a journey, let alone in a day, all of whom must try to keep very complicated records. Because of that difference, I hope that the Government will look closely again at the question of record-keeping, particularly in relation to passenger transport, and see how they can be helpful.
Some of the exemptions have proved to be very satisfactory. The milk industry in particular is glad about the exemption that it has received, although it must be renegotiated by 31st December next year. The fact that this special position for milk has to be renegotiated raises an issue of great significance. If the Government have to go back and talk about milk movements next year, why cannot they also discuss some of the other things mentioned tonight?
Let me list some of the anomalies that arise. The National Federation of Fruit and Potato Merchants makes the point that traditional market patterns in this country will be considerably disrupted by the 50-km. radius rule. Many merchants need much more than that for the most efficient distribution of produce. A figure of 200 km. has been suggested. I know that that raises difficulties for the Government, but it relates to our traditional patterns of distribution and it is something of which they should take note.
There are also some rather silly anomalies. For example, if there is a car factory with plants on either side of a main road and men spend most of their time driving half-finished or finished vehicles from one side of the road to the other, the greater part of their time is not spent on the roads at all. Yet those workers come fully within the EEC regulations. Similarly, there are workers who use tippers on building sites or roadworks. They run for a small part of the day on the road. They will be able to benefit only from the four-hour exemption. In that case, an eight-hour exemption should be the norm.
I think I have said enough for the Government to realise that, while we acknowledge that progress has been made, there is much that needs to be done. Whoever negotiates for the Government must not rest on his laurels. This legislation was, before the introduction of the orders, a great mess. I give the Government credit for trying to tidy up the situation to some extent. It still remains a mass of confusing regulations, containing anomalies and some harmful provisions. Orderly clarification is demanded and further negotiations are needed as soon as possible.
There is a strong feeling that we in this country try to adhere to the letter of the law. That has been the history of


the transport industry. It is felt sometimes that, with some of our EEC partners, it is the spirit rather than the letter of the law which is observed. There is, perhaps, a difference in interpretation. This gives rise to the sort of feeling displayed in a letter which the NFU wrote to me today. It is worried that, by sticking to the 1968 Act together with the EEC regulations, we shall make it more disadvantageous to move animals and foodstuffs in this country. If the Secretary of State remains firm in his view that he will do nothing to remove the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act, a great responsibility will lie upon him. If there are no further exemptions or amendments, we shall be the losers. The losses will mount up, in reduced passenger services and increased haulage costs. Ultimately the public pays.
We acknowledge that it is better to approve these regulations because without them the situation would be even worse, but we cannot give unqualified approval to all that the Secretary of State has done and is doing. If we had to mark his report at the end of this Session on the question of drivers' hours, we would say that he has tried but needs to do more. Perhaps he will not be the person who does the renegotiation in the immediate future. I hope that it will be my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). If by any chance this Parliament staggers on beyond autumn as a result of some wonderful alliance, I must tell the Secretary of State that we do not regard these regulations as the end of his or the Government's responsibility on this vexed question. It is clearly in our national interest to negotiate further and support the British transport industry.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), especially to his peroration, was an appalling experience. All the way through he burked the main issue, which is why we have arrived in this position, with unsatisfactory and complicated legislation.
I had intended to refer to paragraph 5 of the harmonisation regulations concerning the different conditions as between a vehicle with a bunk and one that has no bunk. I thought it uncivilised that in this day and age men should be expected

to sleep in their place of work. Nowhere else is such a condition apparent in the transport industry.
I intended to offer some remarks pointing out that the Transport and General Workers' Union does not believe in cabs with bunks and thinks that they are unnecessary. We thought that we should be able to persuade other unions, even elsewhere in the EEC, to say that it was a mistake to go on investing in and making vehicles like that. But I changed my mind. I think that we need vehicles as big as this, not necessarily in order to carry a second driver but in order to carry the adviser or the lawyer who will have to interpret the position that we are in.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough had the audacity to suggest that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) might be in a position to improve this legislation. I do not care who holds office; the problems of this legislation will go on. Unless there is a combination of genius and God in an attempt to do anything about it, the ramifications will be with us for a very long time.
What are the facts? A little group of bureaucrats got together and decided that they would harmonise all the various conditions all over the countries they represented. They worked out a scheme, and year by year even those who believed in the Common Market had to put it off. When we came to the end of last year—I do not know whether there was a bust-up, or whatever—no agreement could be reached. In effect, they then agreed that the whole thing would come in at the beginning of this year.
We now have a marvellous situation, in which the Secretary of State has to come rushing to the House at least to try to get things into some kind of order by getting wholesale delegation, saying that there are still certain things we have to pass. He says—and this happened on the last occasion—that even though we have to pass this thing, he will have a word with the chief constables and anyone else who enforces the law and say to them "Please don't do anything about it, because we are not in a position to advise people what the law is or where it is."
The hon. Member for Wellingborough talked about other countries that do not have our approach to the passing of law. The Conservative Front Bench should have thought of that before it took us


galloping into this kind of absurd situation. Tonight, as on all these occasions, with perhaps not a lot of people interested, we see another important section of our lives being run not from this country but from Europe.
It is very wry for the hon. Member for Wellingborough to talk about the next General Election and who will win. In many areas it is an academic matter who wins, because increasingly the destiny of this country is not decided in this House at all. We do our best, and we send our Ministers to Europe. At least, the hon. Member is learning not to leap up to the Dispatch Box and attack the Minister for not doing as well as he might, because he realises that the travesty being perpetuated comes back to him too fast from Back Benchers who do not believe in the Common Market.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that another thing that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Fry) said was that the industry looked for improvements? In view of reports in the press, could one of those be the 40-ton limit? Would it be reasonable to hear from the Minister whether he can bring in a 40-ton limit as a quid pro quo for any difficulties, without the permission of the House, and whether it is a derogation or a negative instrument?

Mr. Ellis: I hope that the Front Bench has heard those remarks. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will enlighten us further about the implications of these matters. It is a travesty when both Front Benches say that they do not really understand the order and make some reference to Palmerston. I suppose that is amusing—but I do not find it so. I find it tragic that Ministers and supposedly responsible Opposition spokesmen should make jokes about legislation that is of great concern to lorry drivers.
The hon. Member spoke about the rolling week. I asked him a question about this, and, in effect, he said that it was 365 days in a year and 366 in a leap year. This no joke at all, because it means that every time a driver gets into the cab he has to look a week ahead to see whether he is breaking the law. There is a change every time he gets into the cab every morning. It may be a joke for the

hon. Member but certainly it is no joke for the Transport and General Workers' Union, which tries to be responsible in advising its members what to do in given situations.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested that the union was perhaps not being helpful and that it was "kicking the Common Market. He can attribute what motives he likes. But we in the T and GWU sat down and discussed this measure for a long time with responsible officers and they felt that it was an unsatisfactory situation. Despite this, and despite the fact that they did not really understand it and felt that it was an impossible situation, the Minister had nevertheless managed to get some derogations that would make life a little easier. But life would be even more impossible than it is now if the regulations were not passed.
Therefore, although the T and GWU hopes that something can be done about the points of real difficulty, it does not want the House to throw out the regulations. At least in some limited areas they will not come into force with all their ramifications. That is a responsibe attitude in a body which could be far more bloody-minded, and, indeed, has every right to be.
In this industry with things of that sort happening it is not surprising that a few weeks ago I had to meet a deputation from Grimsby, as a result of the last debate. The employer there—I do not attribute any bad motives to him—had told his men that certain things would have to be changed. This would have led them a few miles up the road from the trip they do from Hull to Grimsby, across to Liverpool and back. There was great consternation. We had a strike on our hands. It was all about a misunderstanding, and perhaps at the end the nod and wink had not gone far enough. So these are very serious matters. This demonstrates the impossibility of the present situation.
I shall not oppose these provisions. I do not know what we can do about the situation, except to make clear to the Minister that the people who negotiated these provisions are in default. I suppose I could make the point that the only thing we can do is not to go on in the Common Market, but the serious


point is to tell the Minister to go to the EEC people and tell them "We have made a pig's ear of this matter". They might then realise that we cannot go to the extreme of trying to harmonise everything in these wildly disparate circumstances.
However, I do not think there is any hope of arriving at a sensible arrangement. Therefore, I urge the Minister to issue a comprehensive document on the subject so that those who may be breaking the law will have some idea where they stand.
This is a dark day, and I believe this to have been one of the worst debates of its kind. It is a most complex matter and it is almost impossible to bring any sense into the subject. In terms of the Common Market, I believe that we have reached a new low point. We should carefully examine the reasons why we have got ourselves into this fatuous position.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We are confronting tonight a classic example of the devastating effect of EEC harmonising legislation, especially when that legislation takes direct effect. After these regulations come into force, we shall have three subdivisions of "journeys" and "work"—international, national and domestic. Even that is confusing, because the word "domestic" is used in two distinct senses.
It may be that there was some justification for the attempt to harmonise the law within the Community relating to international journeys. There is not the faintest justification for the attempt to harmonise internal journeys in the respective countries of the Community. We have largely got into the present difficulty through the itch to harmonise in areas where harmony has nothing whatever to do with the basic purposes for which the Community exists. But in this case, worse than in many others, we do not even have the privilege of translating the harmonisation into our own law and we do not possess the brake which to some extent that places in the hands of this House.
This legislation took effect directly and resulted in what the Minister described as a period of unique uncertainty when two codes of law were in force simulta-

neously, and we had to live with the difficulty for six months. We now have regulations which are an attempt to cauterise the stumps of our own legislation which are left over when the directly effective legislation of the Community has been imposed upon us.
The Minister said that he will produce a simple guide so far as possible to this whole mass of law involving United Kingdom and EEC legislation so that those who have to be bound by it may have some guide through the labyrinth. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, was much more ambitious. He wanted codification and consolidation. It is one thing to talk about codifying and consolidating our own law, hut a very different matter to attempt to consolidate two different codes of law of different origins—and not merely of different origins but written in different language and interpretable by different conventions and, in the last resort, adjudicated upon by different courts. Therefore, let nobody suppose that we can iron this out by having a kind of consolidating Act which will put the EEC legislation and our own legislation together into one document.
There is the even greater irony that the exemptions from the EEC legislation, which takes direct effect, are produced by our own legislation, so that we have to make regulations under United Kingdom law in order to secure the benefit of derogations that derive from EEC law. That is the contradictory state of our law—a law to which we ought not to be subjecting our citizens—which flows from the directly effective harmonising legislation of the EEC, which, on top of all this, derives from EEC legislation made four years before we joined the Community and which derives from the utmost efforts that United Kingdom Ministers have made without a card in their hands.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the Government had better start renegotiating and he thought that it was an opportunity for renegotiation when one of the derogations runs out and we are left even more helpless than we have been in the past. He said that this is the time to start a renegotiation and open up all these matters. Let it be understood perfectly clearly that we have been virtually powerless hitherto,


but when we have absorbed this we shall be totally powerless to renegotiate within the limits of EEC law.
Renegotiation of this or anything else will be possible only when the United Kingdom Government and Ministers are prepared and enabled to say that there is an alternative—when they can say "Gentlemen, you can take it or leave it. These are our conditions, and you know the alternative. The alternative is not that we shall swallow our pride and try to fit our own law to yours. It is what you know perfectly well." When we have that leverage, we can talk about renegotiation. Until then, we have to put up with what is going on in the House tonight.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) used the stock phrase that we are discussing regulations and that this is not the time for us to consider our membership of the EEC. That is what is said every time we discuss some new absurdity foisted on us by the Common Market.
Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman told us about the difficulties of the road haulage industry, when will the time come when we may consider whether our membership of the Community is good or bad for this country? It is about time that we got down to that.

Mr. Fry: In a one and a half hour debate on an important issue affecting many industries apart from the haulage industry, we should confine our remarks to that issue. The hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider aspect which I should be happy to debate with him in future. This is not the occasion for that debate. A number of hon. Members have important points to put to the Minister on the regulations.

Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. We have a mass of regulations which we are supposed to absorb, discuss and decide in one and a half hours. That is a result of our membership of the EEC. By order, we translate into British law pieces of legislation made by a body outside this country.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: rose—

Mr. Stoddart: No. There is not time for me to give way. I want to get through what I have to say so that the hon. Gentleman and others may have the chance to speak.
In paragraph (A) of the supplementary notes on the regulations the problem is stated in the last sentence, which reads:
This coming into operation of the EEC regulation on a broad front creates problems of very great complexity as respects the relationship between the EEC Code and the domestic Code. At present it is difficult to know exactly what is the relationship between the two Codes particularly where they overlap.
I feel sure that by the time the debate is over I shall be just as confused as I was at the beginning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has said, undoubtedly these regulations are so massive and so complicated that the ordinary person who has to deal with them with drivers will not know what is happening.
I have had a letter from my borough council. I shall not summarise it but read it as that will be quicker. It indicates the complications that will be caused to haulage firms and passenger transport undertakings, including those in Swindon. The director, technical services, Mr. Pritchard, writes:
EEC Drivers' Hours Regulation: 543/69.
I have been advised by the Association of District Councils that the phasing-in period relating to the keeping of record books for 'in scope' passenger journeys expired at the end of June. Drivers on 'in scope ' journeys will thenceforward be expected to adhere to the regulation's requirements with regard to the keeping of records.
The 'in scope' journeys are those which exceed 50 kilometres. In the case of undertakings like Thamesdown and other municipal transport operators, none of the regular scheduled services are, of course, anywhere near 50 kilometres, but we, and presumably other undertakings, carry out contract work on private hire arrangements to supplement the undertaking's income, and such journeys can be well over 50 kilometres, ie Swindon to London; Swindon to the coast, etc.; but nevertheless, all drivers have an opportunity to do this work, and it becomes part of the men's duties. It is unlikly that any one driver will he called upon to carry out such work more than once or twice a year, but the consequences arc that every man will have to keep a log book for all his work just for the sake of these one or two journeys per year. This adds, of course, to the bureaucratic paper load, not only on the management, but is also likely to be time-consuming and an unnecessary irritation to the bus drivers themselves—that is assuming that they are prepared


to keep the log books in a reasonable manner, if at all.
This does seem to be carrying the letter of the law a little too far, and in my view would be an unreasonable implementation of the EEC regulation, which I would have thought is quite clearly intended, and probably quite properly to cover drivers who are more or less continuously employed on more medium and long distance passenger transport. I do not know whether you think it is worth taking up this matter with the Department of Transport, or even Mr. Rodgers himself.
I have taken up the matter by writing to my right hon. Friend. I felt that I should bring the issue to the attention of the House so that it is aware of the problems and the worries that will be caused to people in my constituency and in every other constituency throughout the country. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be able to deal with the aspect that I have raised and specificially with heavier loads and higher speed limits—matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: The complexity of these Brussels regulations is indeed remarkable. Members of Parliament need briefs to understand them and the Minister concerned usually feels it necessary to put forward elaborate explanations to all concerned about what is going on and what their legal duties under the regulations are.
Week after week we have ill-attended debates late at night which are often regarded by the public as boring—witness the number of people in the Public Gallery tonight—and unimportant, which they are not.
The question of drivers' hours is a classic case of what I am talking about. It has been rumbling on for many months. People probably know more about this subject than other regulations, because it affects their daily lives. Yet, as so often in the past in similar debates, we are told that as many exceptions, derogations and delays as possible from what is proposed by the Community add up to virtues in themselves.
I would argue that, if we are to go round the inadequacy of the present situation, Parliament must in some way be involved at an earlier stage. There

must be consultations and discussions long before we get to this situation.
In effect, the machinery evolved at Messina and in the Treaty of Rome is creaking dangerously. The machinery of the Council of Ministers, of the bureaucratic Commission, of a weak Parliament at Strasbourg, of national executives, parliaments and regional assemblies—the whole edifice—is in urgent need of repair. Consultation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that we are dealing with a specific portion of all the superstructure about which he is talking.

Mr. Cockcroft: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These traffic regulations bring out these problems in a particularly acute form. Therefore, in future debates we should consider the wider issues raised by them.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: At the outset I should like to place two points on record. The first is a protest that I always make when we discuss EEC matters: the lateness of the hour and the lack of interest by the national press in these fundamental matters which are of such importance to the British people.
The second is the hypocrisy which emanates from the Opposition Front Bench. We get the old argument that to join the Common Market was wonderful, but that, no matter what comes out, it is to be criticised and the Government are to be attacked for the lack of progress, initiative or drive that they have shown in dealing with the regulations. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was no exception tonight. My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear—

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear in opening the debate that the EEC regulations were agreed in 1969. When the United Kingdom joined the EEC, no attempts were made to renegotiate or to deal with any aspects of transport policy. Indeed, it is fair to add that when we went through the charade of the so-called renegotiation, no further attempt was made at that stage to deal with transport policy.
Whenever I, as chairman of the Transport Committee of the European Assembly, have attempted to argue the position from the British standpoint, I have been told by my European colleagues that neither the Conservative nor Labour British Government made any objections to the transport proposals.
The House should recognise that this proposal—I am conscious of the time—is part of a much wider proposal to introduce a common transport policy throughout the EEC. There will be many subsequent debates in the House after the next election when the same group of Members will make the same arguments about the follies and idiocies coming from Brussels. But it will be part of a common transport policy of which all who agree with the Common Market will be in favour—until it affects their industry, constituency or any other interest that they represent. The hon. Member for Wellingborough named a number of organisations, including the Road Haulage Association and the NFU. But in 1975 those organisations fought hard to ensure that Britain remained in Europe.
As one who has battled to attempt to make something of the case for the United Kingdom within the Community, I find it hypocritical of those organisations to come to me now and ask me what I am going to do about the situation. I am trying desperately to do something about it, but without much success.
The House should remember that the derogation from the regulation exhausted itself on 31st December 1977. It should have come into operation on 1st January 1978. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State because, although he is a well-known pro-Marketeer, he fought hard within the European institutions, as did others, to obtain a further three-year derogation for the United Kingdom.
In view of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), we should try to acquaint ourselves with the difficulties involved in the argument for a national scheme as opposed to an international scheme. This was a tack which some of us tried to take. But the difficulty is that the United Kingdom and Ireland are islands whereas the other seven countries are not. They were not prepared, in any circumstances, to countenance a national scheme because of the difficulties that they have

with cross-border traffic and competition.
It is interesting to note the source of pressure for the scheme. It has come from the European trade unions, which are weaker than ours and need legislation to protect them. It has also come from West Germany. That is a transit country. Much traffic from and to other European countries travels through West Germany.
West Germany is anxious to prevent traffic crossing its borders or to force the freight on to rail. We can all understand that argument. But it is essential to recognise the source of the pressure and why it occurs. If we are to formulate a coherent strategy within the EEC we must understand how and why the pressures arise.
Shall we have a special training programme for the extra drivers that will he needed because of this scheme? If we stick to the 450-km limit many journeys in this country will require a second driver. There is no unemployment among heavy goods vehicle drivers. How much will it cost to implement the regulation?
Will reducing the number of hours that a driver can work mean that he will lose wages? How will this conform to the incomes strategy that was put to the House last week? Drivers will not accept loss of earnings. Will the regulation fall foul of the incomes policy?
The Secretary of State must also say something about the tachograph. The tachograph regulation is before the European Court and a ruling will be given soon. It is obvious that the United Kingdom Government have not a snowball's chance in hell of winning that case. What will happen in those circumstances?
Reference has been made to the derogation given to minicoaches. Obviously this relates to the installation of the tachograph, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the derogation on the installation of the tachograph in minicoaches will apply to coaches which want to go on the Continent. I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that the whole argument for the non-installation of the tachograph came from charitable organisations, schools and voluntary organisations which use mini-coaches for their journeys. I understand that whilst there may be a derogation here, they still cannot travel on the Continent.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to enforcement. Can my hon. Friend give us some indication of the level of enforcement of these rules relating to drivers' hours within the other member countries? My information is that the other countries are less keen than is the United Kingdom to enforce this aspect of the law, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give us some indication of the position.
We are told, and I accept, that these proposals are in the interests of road safety and that by reducing the number of hours for which drivers can drive their vehicles we are making sure that too much stress is not placed upon drivers. The one hole in this argument—and I have raised this in the House before, with Commission officials and in the European Assembly—is that there is nothing in these regulations to prevent a driver from taking a second job. In other words, a lorry driver could obey all these regulations, drive for a number of hours, step out of his cab, change his suit and take a job as a barman, a theatre attendant or, conceivably, as a taxi driver and not fall foul of these regulations. Will my hon. Friend dwell for a moment on the fact that there is nothing to prevent a driver who is governed by these rigorous regulations from taking a second job?

11.57 p.m.

Mr Hugh Dykes: I had 19 things to say, and I now have to select three of them very quickly.
It is a great shame that Labour Members insist on reaching what I call fundamentalist conclusions as a result of the inevitable complexities of some parts of EEC legislation, particularly on this subject. As someone rightly said in the press over the weekend, we do not say that the House of Commons should be demolished or removed or dismantled just because we disagree with some aspects of its legislation, and it is equally illogical to say that about the EEC.
I think that this is an unusually complicated afrea of EEC legislation, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on what they have done. It was a very difficult task. Of course they could have done more, and of course I could criticise substantially, but I think that there would have

been very little difference in the final results whichever Minister had been pursuing these difficult negotiations.
One of the things that is designed to be tackled in all this problem is the number of hours which lorry drivers have to work. They still have to work too long hours, for all sorts of reasons—I am not making any particular criticism—and I think that the EEC rules, once all the painful harmonisation is achieved in the early 1980s, will be a very good thing.
Can the Minister say the intensity with which he will press the point about exemption for milk vehicles? I think that the situation should be clarified, and perhaps there will be problems on that aspect towards the end of the negotiations.

11.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I think that, for reasons of time, if nothing else, I shall try to avoid the more general arguments about the EEC which have been running through this debate. I agreed with what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about domestic harmonisation.
Perhaps I may deal chronologically with the speeches made in the debate. On the whole, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was very fair in his remarks. We are not anxious ever to accept less than perfection. The hon. Member asked whether we would consolidate the regulations in some respects. Again, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Down, South, it is not possible to consolidate regulations in this way. Certainly we can do nothing unilaterally.
The hon. Member also made some remarks about officials in the Department. I must tell him that one or two senior officials have actually deferred their retirement to secure continuity through this rather difficult, uncertain period.
The hon. Member asked me whether we would issue the booklet shortly and whether I could say anything about that. We hope to issue the layman's guide, as my right hon. Friend termed it, more or less simultaneously with the coming into effect of these regulations. That will be about 15 days' time after the appropriate parliamentary procedures have been completed.
The hon. Member asked whether we had talked to the Transport and General Workers' Union about section 96. Section 96 relates to duty time or limits and spread-over. I think that the hon. Member was referring to that. We talked to that union and it was most anxious that we retain these provisions, because the fact is that one cannot control drivers' hours simply by talking about the time they drive. One has also to consider the other aspects of their work, take those into account, and consider the full working day. That is how domestic legislation has always operated. It is right that we should continue this if we do not wish to go back on progress already made in the social sphere. So we did that for those good reasons. In doing that, we are perfectly in line with the stated intention of the EEC, and not only with our own good sense and the good sense of the Transport and General Workers' Union in this respect.
The hon. Member also asked me, in what I think was the nub of his argument, for our views about the fixed week and the rolling week. I think that the hon. Member exaggerated the case there. Certainly we have argued for the fixed week throughout the negotiations. It would be better to have the fixed week than the rolling week. Given that this problem reaches its height only on some excursion tours—the hon. Member instanced the kind about which we are thinking—I think that the problems are more limited than he implied. But I can reassure the hon. Member that we shall continue to negotiate on this point.
As the hon. Member knows, the regulations with regard to the rolling week do not yet come into effect. They come into effect for goods vehicles at the beginning of next year and for buses in October of next year. Certainly by the second stage—almost certainly not by the first stage—we hope that we shall have something in progress on this point. That will possibly not be so. It remains to be seen. None the less, we shall continue to negotiate hard on this matter because we recognise its importance for the flexible working of the industry.
The hon. Member asked why the number of seats on minibuses was 15 and not 17, when we have pretty well standardised on 17 seats throughout our domestic

legislation, in the Transport Bill, the Minibus Act and other Acts. This was simply a matter of negotiation. We wished to achieve 17 seats, but our EEC colleagues did not wish to go as high as we in fact achieved, and the figure was a compromise in the end.
I do not believe that this will lead to the sort of competition with existing services which the hon. Member feared. The fact is that commercial minibuses are still subject to our own drivers' hours regulations, and the difference between them and the new drivers' hours restrictions will not be as decisive as the general economic and social arguments for or against using minibuses in certain situations. I do not believe that these particular changes in the law will have the large effect on bus operations which the hon. Member implied.
The hon. Member asked whether we are continuing to negotiate on various sensitive areas, such as the carriage of milk and of fruit vegetables, and flowers, and areas of that kind, where there are serious problems. I assure the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that we intend to press very hard indeed on the matter of the extension of the derogation for milk, the importance of which we recognise. We are sorry that we had to compromise for the existing derogation that we have, ending in 1980, but we shall take up that point again as hard as we can.
I ask the hon. Member for Wellingborough to distinguish between those things about which we can negotiate within the Community regulations, such as the extension of the derogation for milk, and the other anomalies. He mentioned a factory site split by a highway. We cannot take account of this without a change in the regulations. They are regulations which, as has been said, the Opposition accepted in the Treaty of Accession in 1972. There is that problem in dealing with any further changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) also spoke in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) intervened, on the question of heavy lorries. We have no proposals in that respect. Any speculation or rumour in newspapers to a different effect is erroneous.
I have dealt with the broad points of the right hon. Member for Down, South, with which I have sympathy. As he said, we had no powers to renegotiate these things, but we did the best we could in the circumstances.
I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) about the points he raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) mentioned pay policy. We are sympathetic to the view that lorry drivers should not lose because of these changes. My right hon. Friend is consulting his colleagues to see how these problems can be resolved.
My hon. Friend also mentioned minibuses going to the Continent and the regime which applies there—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

RATING AND VALUATION

12.7 a.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): I beg to move,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (Adjustment) Order 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft British Aluminium Company Limited and Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July be approved.
That the draft British Gas Corporation (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.
That the draft Post Office Telecommunications Services (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.
That the draft Scottish Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

Mr. MacKenzie: These six orders have much in common since they all relate to the formula valuation of undertakings in Scotland, and together they cover virtually all the undertakings which at present either make payments in lieu of rates or are valued, according to formula. The orders prescribe aggregate rateable values for the current year for the operational undertakings of the Gas Corporation in Scotland, of the British Railways Board in Scotland, of the Post Office telecommunications services in Scotland and of the Scottish electricity boards. The water undertakings order is of a different kind and I shall deal with it separately. The orders also prescribe formulae for the determination, by the assessor of public undertakings, of aggregate rateable values for subsequent years and for the apportionment of the aggregate values for any year among local authorities. Rates will then be levied in the normal way on the apportioned values. The remaining order provides the formula for the valuation by the local assessor of the British Aluminium Company's hydroelectric installation in Lochaber.
The undertakings concerned are among those which, because of their size and complexity, are not considered suitable for conventional valuation for rating. The electricity and railways boards do not pay rates at present, but make payments in lieu of rates under a statutory formula. The other undertakings are already subject to a statutory formula valuation but these are replaced under the relevant orders by revised formulae. The orders will have effect from the beginning of the current rating year—that is, 1st April 1978.
The orders prescribe the following aggregate values for the current year: South of Scotland Electricity Board, £21·6 million; North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, £5·3 million; Gas Corporation, £5·6 million; Railways Board, £1·97 million; Post Office, £2·44 million; British Aluminium, £461,000.
These amounts have been fixed after taking into account a number of considerations, including the level of rating on the corresponding undertakings in England and Wales, and they are considered to be fair and reasonable both to the undertakings and to the local authorities.
Rates payable for the current year on the prescribed values, after apportionment, will in total be more than 14 per cent above the payments made by the undertakings for 1977–78. While this increase will not of itself give rise to any early increase in the charges made by the undertakings, the level of rates will, of course, be a factor, along with other costs, in future reviews of charges.
The aggregate rateable value of each undertaking for years subsequent to 1978–79 will be determined for the assessor of public undertakings by increasing or reducing the previous year's aggregate by in most cases 25 per cent. of any change in the activity of the undertaking, in terms of the amount of electricity or gas supplied or generated, or of railway passengers and freight carried. In the case of the Post Office, the actual increase in value will be directly proportionate to the increase in the number of exchange connections.
Apportionment of the aggregate values of the electricity and gas undertakings among local authorities is usually in two parts. In each case part of the aggregate

will be allocated to areas in which there are major assets such as generating stations or elements of the national gas transmission system; the remainder will be distributed, in the case of electricity and of the Post Office, in proportion to the rateable value of other property in each area and, in the case of gas, in proportion to the gas consumption in the area. The railway aggregate will be apportioned among areas in which receipts accrue to British Rail from passenger and freight traffic. Under the new arrangements some areas will derive relatively more income and others relatively less from the undertakings. However, these changes will be reflected in the distribution of the resource element of rate support grant. For the British Aluminium Company situated in two districts, apportionment offers no problems.
The remaining order, that for the water undertakings, can be explained fairly simply. It is made under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, which by section 16 and schedule 2 provides in effect that the rateable value of water undertakings shall be a prescribed sum multiplied by the gallonage of water supplied per day. At the time of the 1971 revaluation the sum was £9·744. The order effectively increases this sum by a factor related to the effect of revaluation on rateable values generally in Scotland making it £31·21. This will maintain the relative position of water undertakings in scale of values, again with effect from 1st April this year.
These orders follow a review of the rating of the undertakings, carried out in co-operation with representatives of the undertakings and of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has been advised of the proposals in the orders. I commend the orders to the House.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining some of the complications of the procedure. We are aware that it is not exactly a straightforward system of rating. It requires a certain amount of explanation. It reveals to a considerable extent the inadequacy of the rating system. It has been argued on other occasions that this is the only way in which


public undertakings can be assessed for inclusion in the rating system.
I question that, however, because I believe that industrial undertakings in the private sector, which often involve buildings and services which are not dissimilar from the undertakings we are discussing, such as oil and chemical plants, appear to be capable of assessment and are included in the ordinary assessment valuations by local authorities. Indeed, there are sites throughout Scotland where such rather complex industrial operations are carried out and they are assessed for rating in the ordinary way. However, perhaps the complexity of these arrangements emphasises the need either for the abolition of the present rating system or for a fairer and more straightforward system of local taxation. However, these are not matters that we shall go into tonight.
I wish to put three questions to the Minister. The first concerns the operational undertakings of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and the British Railways Board in Scotland that make annual payments in lieu of rates. The remaining undertakings are subject to the formula valuations. The Minister mentioned a 14 per cent. increase this year over the previous year. I wonder whether this is sufficient to take into account in all these orders the revaluation which came into effect on 1st April this year in Scotland which generally speaking imposed a heavier rates burden on commercial and industrial undertakings. Is that revaluation and the increased cost of rates to industry and commerce in Scotland reflected in these orders?
Second, during the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1978, which amended the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, we were particularly concerned about consultation with local authorities and other interested parties and organisations. Were full consultations carried out with regard to these orders, and has full agreement been reached with all the third parties involved in these rather separate assessments?
Finally, I ask the Minister about the review of formula which I understand was made in England and Wales and resulted in new and higher assessments for

electricity, gas and railways in 1976 and 1977. In view of the obvious differences in the types of undertakings in Scotland, notably in electricity for which we have the virtually unique electricity board in the south of Scotland which generates and distributes electricity and the Hydro-Electric Board in the north of Scotland, is the Minister satisfied that the review in England and Wales was of any real value to Scotland, and should not a separate review have taken place in Scotland to enable us to make our own assessment of these undertakings?
If the right hon. Gentleman can reply to those questions, I shall be grateful.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words even at this time of the night on the subject of these orders. I wish first to speak about the British Aluminium Company and the work which it has done in the Highlands. Although the relevant order does not specifically refer to its activities in Ross and Cromarty, it refers to its activities in other parts of the Highlands.
I wish the House to know of the work which the company has done and the benefit it has brought to the people in that area through the employment which it has provided. It is worthy of note that over the years, although it has had to suffer all the difficulties which every other development has faced in the Highlands of Scotland, British Aluminium has managed to survive and produce at the end of the day in my constituency in Invergordon a smelter which gives employment to no fewer than 1,000 people. This is much appreciated in the Highlands, and even those who, I think, had reservations about the company's activities in the early stages have now come to acknowledge the benefits which it has brought.
I wish now to say a word about the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Does the order include, for example, the fishings which are administered by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? In my constituency there are many fishings of great value at present administered by the board, to the great acceptance of everyone in that area. I


should like to have it confirmed that the order covers that area.
As regards matters ancillary to fishing, I think it worthy of mention that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has accrued unto itself a certain admiration from the people living in the area because not only has it been able to provide employment at a time when employment has been very much needed but the social aspect of its work has been greatly appreciated. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on some of the matters which I have mentioned in earlier debates with reference to the activities of the board, especially in regard to its relationship with the British Aluminium Company. Those of us who have lived and worked in the Highlands for many years see both the British Aluminium Company and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board as integral parts of the prosperity which is now bringing a great deal of benefit to us. I should like the Minister to comment on the Government's attitude towards the pricing of electricity to industry which hopes to move into the area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. We are dealing with five motions, but I am not certain that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman is referring is covered by any of them.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall of course be guided by you, but I am sure that you will agree that when we are discussing such questions as the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the rates they will have to pay for the land or property which they occupy, what they ultimately aim to do must clearly be part of the discussion. I hope that you will bear with me if I develop my argument in the briefest possible way in order to keep within the rules of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to help me as to which of the orders he is talking about, and which part of that order, I shall be only too pleased to accommodate him.

Mr. Gray: The orders to which I am referring are the draft Statutory Instruments relating first to the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of

Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and, secondly, to the British Aluminium Company. Those two orders are of specific interest to us. I am sure that the Minister will do his utmost to answer my questions.
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I feel that where one has a specific constituency interest this is one of the few opportunities to raise such questions in the House. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if one could keep within the rules of order one could go on for an hour and a half on these subjects. I have no intention of doing so, but I give the Secretary of State that preliminary warning.
I hope that the Minister of State will give a little more detail on exactly what the orders mean and how they apply to the points I have raised.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Much as we should all like to comment on the price of electricity and so on, and tempted as I may be to do that, you would certainly rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about the work done by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in relation to employment in the Highlands. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have always said that we very much appreciate the board's work as we do the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. But although I should like to follow the hon. Gentleman into that argument, it does not fall within the orders. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the fishings. They are not included in the formula for valuation, as they are rated separately.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) asked me a number of questions. He said that he was not satisfied that we yet had in Scotland the correct form of rating. We have discussed this subject for a long time. We have one thing in common, that neither of us likes paying rates, but I am not certain that that is a view the Government can take.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we were approaching the matter in the right way. It is very difficult to compare large public companies, monopolies, which have large plants and all manner


of lines, pipelines and so on, with industrial interests. The working party did a useful job on this and we are indebted to it. The only sensible way of looking at this was to see what had happened in the review which took place in England and Wales concerning gas and electricity. In one case a figure slightly above percentage turnover was fixed while in the other case the figure was slightly below the percentage turnover. We looked at the issue and decided that the figure was somewhere around 3 per cent. This is reflected in the orders.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North also asked about the rate burden of the public utilities. One of his noble Friends raised this matter last year, asking whether there had been a declining contribution from them in Scotland. The share of the overall rate burden met by the electricity boards should rise this year from 1·91 per cent. to 2·25 per cent. while the gas industry contribution should rise from 0·45 per cent. to 0·48 per cent. The railways' share should rise from 0·10 per cent. to 0·18 per cent. Taking all of the orders tonight, the rise is from 4 per cent. to 4·5 per cent. Whether this will continue remains to be seen. I said in opening that the formulae we have laid down will reflect an increase. There could be a reduction but one hopes for an increase in railway traffic, in Post Office connections, in the amount of gas consumed and so on.
I was also asked about consultation. The only groups of people concerned about the formulae were those concerned with the undertakings and those in the local authorities. They have formed part of the working parties and their views are reflected in the orders being put forward tonight. There has been fairly full official consultation with them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Valuation (Water Undertakings) (Scotland) (Adjustment) Order 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft British Aluminium Company Limited and Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

Resolved.
That the draft British Gas Corporation (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

Resolved,
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

Resolved,
That the draft Post Office Telecommunications Services (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

Resolved,
That the draft Scottish Electricity Boards (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): For the convenience of the House I will put the motions relating to the shipbuilding industry together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

SHIPBUILDING

That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

STONEHENGE (FESTIVALS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being here at a late hour to consider the problems of Stonehenge. I wish that it had been possible to spare him. But, as he knows, the difficulties arising from the annual solstice celebrations have not abated. It is the Government alone who can improve matters.
In March I wrote to Lady Birk, who has responsibility for ancient monuments,


asking her whether I would be on my feet, yet again, in this Chamber after this year's summer solstice. I asked her whether there were any grounds for believing that what had happened in three-successive years would not recur. In the event, troubles did recur. I cannot speak too highly of the Wiltshire police—of their patience, humanity and efficiency.
Despite the efforts of the police, at dawn on 16th June the same padlocked gate was forced and the same farmer has suffered heavy damage to field and fencing. When I took a look at the situation the following day, I found that the illegal army of festival-goers had already dug in—vehicles, tents, stage, the lot.
The Minister will not be surprised if am critical. His Department owns the monument—and the monument acts as a magnet. Young people are attracted to it from all over the country and the Continent. They know that the main axis of the monument is aligned to the midsummer sunrise at 4.59 a.m. on 21st June. They know that Stonehenge is steeped in mystery and legend. They seek to get as close to it as possible, and that much is not difficult to understand.
Their number runs into thousands. I am told that the invasion is planned and publicised by two communes in Muswell Hill. They arrive for a fortnight, and the Minister knows that there is no sanitation, no water, no firewood, no provision of any kind. The Minister is rightly concerned with the safety of the monument itself. He rings it with dannert wire, a necessity which both he and I regret. But the direct result is that the invading army, unable to penetrate the Minister's defences, denied the chance to pitch camp within the stone circle, turns off the road a few hundred yards short of but in sight of the monument itself.
The Minister then washes his hands of the whole business. It is, according to Lady Birk's letter to me,
a matter for the police and the owners and occupiers of the land.
Yet, all too correctly, she points out:
the legal remedies open to owners and occupiers in the case of mass trespass are difficult to bring to bear in time to prevent the trespass from taking place. Neither we nor the police know the identity of the organisers and there is accordingly little prospect of obtaining an injunction to restrain them. Even if one were obtained against some individuals, and served upon them, others would be likely to take their place in promoting the festival.

Precisely. To put it another way, the law is inadequate. This is an ignoble posture for Government. The Minister rings his own plot with dannert wire, and with all the resources of the State. He then tells the National Trust and its farming tenants to fend for themselves, and in the same breath accepts the total absence of legal remedy available to them.
So the first thing I ask the Minister for tonight is compensation for the farmer who has suffered. The Department's receipts from the monument exceed £150,000 a year, and I am talking about 1 per cent. of that figure. These are unique circumstances. There is no danger of creating precedents, for there is only one Stonehenge, and its problems are peculiar, not general.
I suggest that the Department should consider claims on an ex gratia basis. I suggest that the ability to claim should be confined solely to farming tenants of National Trust land surrounding the monument. I expect the Minister to accede to this request.
If he tells me that he can find no way of doing so, I shall ask myself what calibre of Ministers are being appointed to the Department today. If a Minister cannot find £2,000 to ensure the good name of his Department, something is seriously wrong.
A year ago the Minister spoke of
football crowds doing damage to shops and houses on their way to football grounds, in which cases the owners of the grounds cannot be expected to compensate all in the area for something a third party does."—[Official Report, 27th July, 1977; Vol. 936, c. 905.]
With respect, this is a wholly false analogy, and the Minister knows it.
At Stonehenge the invaders have only one wish—to pitch their tents at the monument and the Minister's dannert wire prevents them from doing so. His Department is on record as saying,
We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby.
I have a second proposal. I suggest that in future the Minister should receive the invaders on his own land. He has a lease of some 30 acres, so there is plenty of room. The police will be happy about that. Archaeologically the dangers are no greater than at present. The National Trust is greatly troubled by the whole


business, but it would be prepared to agree that one site is less objectionable than others. The great advantage would be that damage to private property would cease.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he receives the tents and vehicles himself, or he assists those who carry the burden instead. His present stance is equivocal, and it does him no credit.
I start from the premise that we cannot go on as we are. I accept that no alternative course is perfect, and I realise that the Minister's 30 acres are cheek-by-jowl with the monument. This means that for a fortnight visitors will be horrified by the clutter of vehicles and tents close by. I repeat that no alternative course is perfect.
However, I suspect that there is another reason why the Minister shies away from admitting the festival on to his own land. The festival is illegal—it is mass trespass. He cannot condone illegality. To me, that argument is valid the first year. It is less valid the second year. In the third year illegality becomes a recognised feature. After four years the argument about not condoning illegality becomes academic and hypocritical.
Of course I deplore non-observance of the law, but I believe that we must face reality and cannot go on as we are. I believe that the Minister's attitude, safely behind his barbed wire, is the regrettable attitude of "I'm all right, Jack." If plans have to be made to hold in reserve and readiness water carts, firewood and what are called "Portaloos", so be it.
Finally, action is needed here in Parliament. The law is inadequate, yet the Department is silent. I believe that a Bill —the Night Assemblies Bill—would have helped. Surely that measure contained much that was constructive. Was it not regrettable that that Bill should have been talked out at a late stage by some of the Minister's less responsible colleagues?
I hope that the Minister will say a brief word tonight about his intentions in this respect. I have not time now to deal with the important questions of crowd control and all the rest of it. That must wait. We are deeply proud in Wiltshire to have this great monument, but it is an inheritance which brings practical

problems in its train. I hope that the Minister will help.

12.42 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I wish to thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) for his unfailing courtesy in his dealings with my Department about solstice events at Stonehenge —one of our most important monuments, if not the most important monument—and for his generally understanding attitude to the difficulties that face us all—government, local authorities, the police and local people—in this matter. Although the hon. Gentleman has spoken strongly tonight, I agree that he is justified in so doing.
Last year's debate on Stonehenge ended at 5 a.m. This debate will end at about 1 a.m. Perhaps tonight we should have invited the druids and the festival folk to come to listen to this debate and then to go on to the Terrace to watch the sun rise between the stones of County Hall and St. Thomas's Hospital.
In my speech almost exactly a year ago I said:
I should like to make it clear, to avoid misunderstanding, that the Department has neither encouraged nor condoned the free festival at Stonehenge. It is unauthorised and entirely unwelcome."—[Official Report, 27th July 1978; Vol. 936, c. 903–4.]
That is still the case, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to try to improve the position.
Let me try to summarise what happened this year. The Department erected a dannert wire triangle around the monument of Stonehenge. The Wiltshire police guarded the monument from 16th June until 27th June. The vanguard of the festival people arrived on 16th June and again encamped in a field to the east of the Fargo Plantation owned by the National Trust and farmed by Mr. Wort. Most of the time it was wet and rather chilly. This probably kept the attendance this year to about 2,000.
The site of the encampment is of archaeological importance as there are burial mounds there and it forms part of the "cursus". Less damage was done to farm and woodland than in 1977—the National Trust suggest approximately £1,000 worth. The Trust has promised to provide a detailed costing in a few weeks' time. The Stonehenge circle was open


and free to all on the day following the summer solstice; the druids held a midday ceremony there and this was followed by a gathering attended by about 250 festival folk. All passed off uneventfully. Probably because the larger recumbent stones were covered with tarpaulin, negligible damage appears to have been done to the monument. By 27th June only a handful of festival folk were left and the dannert wire around the main site was removed on 28th June.
Although the free festival can be said to have passed off without damage to the monument or to life and limb, no one who was involved with events there can be entirely satisfied. Certainly not my Department, which had to spend thousands of pounds for police services and on the erection of dannert wire which made the immediate area look like a concentration camp; not the general public, who saw all this; not the police, who had to deploy precious manpower day after day on patrolling trespassers; not those attending the festival, who claim that, against their will, they had to squat illegally in insanitary conditions; not the National Trust, which saw its property damaged; and finally, but by no means least, not the tenant, Mr. Wort, whose farming was again disrupted for three weeks and who bore the brunt of the damage.
The hon. Member for Salisbury suggested an ex gratia payment to the tenants of the Trust whose land was invaded, in particular Mr. Wort. I have every sympathy with Mr. Wort and others whose property was damaged. As I sought to make clear last year, my Department is under no legal obligation to them and to make payments to them raises issues of considerable importance. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Member's argument that there are very special circumstances in this case and although I can give no firm commitment about it—there will have to be a number of negotiations—I shall certainly consider very carefully with my noble Friend Lady Birk what he has said and shall do all I can. I can go no further at present, but I hope to receive a detailed costing from the National Trust soon.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should let these people on to the Department's land. We considered this carefully, and this year we did not fence all the Department's land, but the festival

folk still did not go on it. There are problems. There is no water, though I expect that that could be dealt with. It is archaeologically very sensitive and is very close to the monument.
The hon. Gentleman has also suggested that a form of licensing system is the answer to the problems, but that was not the view of the majority of members of the working group on pop festivals in their second report published in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 19th January that the Government share that view.
This sort of trouble is so rare nowadays that it would be inappropriate to use the Night Assemblies Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That could have repercussions on many other peaceful events throughout the country.
I said that the Department's land is archaeologically sensitive, but so is the land on which the festival folk camped. Miss Mellor of the Festival Welfare Services, to which the Home Office has given a grant, through the National Council of Social Services, distributed maps showing the various barrows and processional routes. These, together with notes urging people to have consideration for the sites, were helpful and, as far as I know, there was no damage to any site.
There would appear to be three options for future years. The first would be to seek to mount a really massive police exercise in the hope of breaking the habit of annual festivals at Stonehenge. I do not think that such an exercise would be feasible or successful and I think this course must be rejected out of hand. The second is for my Department to continue to safeguard its land as in the past. Obviously, Stonehenge must be protected, not only from these festivals, but from all the other visitors. But as I have already acknowledged, the effect of doing this is less than satisfactory to all the parties involved.
The third option—and it is the one that I and my colleague propose to adopt—is to seek further discussions with the Trust and the local authorities, including the police, to see whether other arrangements for accommodating the festival can be made. Exactly how and where I honestly do not know. We shall, however, seek genuinely to find a solution.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Before the debate is called to a close, I wish to put on record how deeply I appreciate what the Minister has said.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I realise that he has raised the problem again more in sorrow than

in anger. I share his sentiments and I hope that it will not be necessary to debate the problem a third time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.